^•♦/ 


LIBRARY 

OF   THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N;  J. 
Case,.,  •-r— vrr:r..r^^ 
Shelf,  .  X  2.4!^^ 
Book, 


J 


a 


c^^ 


a^  ^^^l^<^u:^^^t^ 


COUIISE  OF  LECTUMES, 


CONTAINING  A 


DESCRIPTION   AND   SYSTEMATIC    ARRANGEMENT 


OF   THE   SEVERAL 


BRANCHES  OF  DIVINITY : 

ACCOMPANIED  WITU 

AN    ACCOUNT,    BOTH  OF    THE    PRINCIPAL    AUTHORS,    AND    OF 

THE    PPOGRESS,    WHICH    HAS    BEEN    MADE    AT 

DIFFERENT  PERIODS 

%f)tolo5ml  Hearning* 

BY  HERBERT  MARSH,  D.  D.  F.R.  S. 

MARGARET   PROFESSOR  OF   DIVINITY. 


PART  I. 


CAMBRIDGE : 

PUBLISHED    BY    WILLIAM    HILLIARD. 


Hiliiarcl  Cf  Metcalf  printers. 

1812. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.archive.org/details/courseoflecturesOOmars 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


When  thesC  Lectures  were  written,  they  were 
not  designed  for  publication,  at  least  not  for  present 
publication.  I  proposed  to  follow  the  example  of 
other  Lecturers,  and,  when  I  had  completed  the 
Course,  to  make  the  same  Lectures  serve  again  and 
again  for  every  successive  audience.  For  so  doing  I 
had  this  additional  inducement,  that  three  years  at 
least  must  elapse  before  the  whole  series  of  Lectures 
can  be  completed,  during  which  time  the  Young  Men 
of  the  University,  for  whom  they  were  principally  in- 
tended, will  have  been  succeeded  by  a  new  genera- 
tion. And  as  soon  as  I  had  performed  the  task  of 
•writing  the  Lectures,  I  could  have  divided  them  into 
a  triennial  course,  commensurate  with  the  usual  peri- 
od of  academical  study.  After  all,  if  I  thought  it  ex- 
pedient, I  had  the  publication  of  them  in  reserve, 
whenever  sickness,  or  the  infirmities  of  age  might 
prevent  me  from  continuing  to  deliver  them. 

Such  was  my  original  plan,  which  I  have  been  in- 
duced to  abandon  by  the  solicitation  of  my  friends ; 
and  it  is  now  my  intention  to  publish  every  year  the 
Lectures,  which  have  been  delivered  in  that  year.     I 


ir  PREFACE. 

shall  thus  lose  the  advantiige,  when  the  present  Course 
is  finished,  of  being  provided  with  a  fund  for  future 
uses,  since  Lectures  once  published  can  never  be  de- 
livered again.  But  this  private  inconvenience  will  be 
amply  compensated,  if  the  printing  of  them  affords 
any  benefit  to  the  public.  One  advantage  at  least 
will  arise  from  the  present  publication  of  them,  name- 
ly, that  the  Young  Men,  \Nho  are  now  entering  on 
their  academical  studies,  will  be  thus  enabled,  before 
the  Lectures  are  resumed,  to  make  themselves  ac- 
quainted with  the  subjects  already  explained.  And 
even  they,  who  had  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the  Lec- 
tures now  printed,  may  find  it  convenient  to  have 
their  memories  assisted  in  the  recollection  of  many 
points,  which  it  is  necessary  to  know,  in  order  to  un- 
derstand the  subjects  of  inquiry  in  future  Lectures, 
For  as  the  whole  Course  is  intended  to  form  a  system- 
atic  arrangement,  the  connexion  of  the  several  parts 
must  be  constantly  kept  in  view,  or  the  purport  of 
that  arrangement  will  be  defeated.  These  considera- 
tions have  had  the  chief  influence  on  my  present  de- 
termination. Nor  must  I  neglect  either  to  mention, 
or  to  acknowledge  with  gratitude,  the  additional  in- 
ducement in  the  liberal  offer  of  the  Syndics  of  the 
Press  to  defray  the  expense  of  publication. 

As  these  Lectures  were  delivered  in  the  Universi- 
ty Church,  it  was  necessary  to  adapt  the  mode  of  com- 
position to  the  place  and  the  audience,  for  which  they 
were  intended.  In  writing  a  book,  which  is  design- 
ed for  private  meditation,  an  author  cannot  easily  be 
too  minute,  either  in  his  own  researches,  or  in  refer- 


PREFACE. 


ences  to  the  works  of  other  authors.  In  a  private 
Lecture-room,  where  a  Lecturer  can  occasionally  wait 
while  his  pupils  are  taking  notes,  and  where  other 
circumstances  compensate  for  the  dryness  of  his  man- 
ner, he  may  likewise  be  minute  in  his  references,  or 
even  produce  the  authors  as  he  quotes  them.  But 
when  a  Professor  is  speaking  from  the  University 
Pulpit,  and  is  addressing  a  numerous  audience,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  obtain  unremitted  attention,  if 
the  fluency  of  his  discourse  were  interrupted  by  par- 
ticular references  to  chapter  and  section,  to  volume 
and  page.  This  inconvenience  however  is  in  a  great 
measure  remedied  by  the  circumstance,  that  it  is  an 
essential  part  of  my  plan  to  give  an  account  of  the 
principal  books  in  Theology ;  and  these  are  at  the 
same  time  the  sources,  from  which  I  myself  have  de- 
rived the  information  contained  in  the  Lectures. 
Thus,  the  auihors  enumerated  at  the  end  of  the  fourth 
Lecture  are  the  vouchers  for  that  history  of  Sacred 
Criticism,  during  the  early  and  the  middle  ages, 
which  is  given  in  the  third  and  fourth  Lectures.  In 
like  manner,  when  the  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment is  finished,  an  account  will  be  given  of  the  prin- 
cipal authors  on  that  subject,  and  the  same  will  be 
done  in  every  other  branch.  It  is  true,  that  many  of 
the  quoted  works  are  of  considerable  size  :  but  since 
for  the  most  part  they  are  methodically  arranged,  since 
many  of  them  are  provided  with  indexes,  and  others 
with  tables  of  contents,  the  particular  subjects,  for 
which  it  may  be  necessary  to  consult  them,  will  gen- 
erally be  found  without  difficulty.     Little  or  no  bene- 


VI  PREFACE. 


fit  therefore  would  have  been  derived  from  printing 
the  Lectures  in  any  other  form,  than  that,  in  which 
they  were  delivered.  And  even  without  this  consid- 
eration, it  would  probably  be  less  agreeable  to  those 
who  so  lately  heard  them,  if  on  reading  them  there 
should  appear  any  material  difference.  Trivial  alter- 
ations, in  regard  to  single  expressions,  such  as  occur 
to  every  author,  while  he  is  correcting  the  proof 
sheets  of  his  work,  were  of  course  admitted,  as  it 
would  be  blameable  to  reject  them.  But  in  substance 
nothing  has  been  altered.  I  had  even  printed,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  third  Lecture,  that  enumeration  of 
the  branches  of  Divinity,  with  which  I  closed  the  sec- 
ond Lecture,  and  which  were  repeated  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third,  because  it  was  necessary  to  impress 
tl!em  on  the  minds  of  every  hearer.  But  in  correct- 
ing the  proof  sheet  at  p.  49,  and  on  perceiving  that 
the  same  enumeration,  which  appeal's  in  p.  47,  was 
repeated  on  the  opposite  page,  I  erased  the  repetition 
as  unnecessary  for  the  reader^  though  it  was  necessary 
for  the  hearer. 

For  the  reasons  already  assigned  I  have  retained 
the  exordium  of  the  first  Lecture,  though  it  relates  to 
two  deviations  from  the  custom  of  my  predecessors, 
for  which  only  my  immediate  hearers  could  require 
an  apology.  I  have  retained  also  the  English  trans- 
lation of  French  title-pages,  which  could  not  with  pro- 
priety have  been  given  in  the  original  from  an  English 
pulpit.  French  proper  names  are  likewise  written,  as 
they  are  commonly  used  in  England,  which  is  the 
more  necessary,  as  a  departure  from  this  rule  would 


PREFACE.  VII 


frequently  create  confusion.  For  instance,  the  French 
name  of  the  celebrated  editor  of  the  Greek  Testament 
was  Robert  Estienne  ;  but  as  he  is  always  called  in 
English  Robert  Stephens,  it  would  have  led  the  read- 
er into  error,  if  I  had  called  him  by  any  other  name. 
A  similar  motive  has  induced  me  to  call  the  well- 
known  Oxford  editor  of  the  Greek  Testament  by  the 
name  of  Dr.  Mill :  for  though  it  was  not  his  real 
name,  but  was  formed  from  the  omission  of  the  ter- 
mination in  his  Latin  name  Millius,  yet  as  he  is  gen- 
erally known  by  the  name  of  Mill,  it  might  have  per- 
plexed the  reader  if  I  had  used  any  other. 

As  the  Lectures  for  the  present  year  were  finished, 
before  the  description  of  the  first  branch  of  Divinity 
was  completed,  I  thought  it  necessary  at  the  end  of  the 
last  Lecture  to  make  some  general  observations  in 
respect,  both  to  that,  and  to  some  other  branches  of  Di- 
vinity not  yet  described.  The  reasons  for  so  doing 
are  assigned  in  their  proper  place,  and  therefore  it  is 
unnecessary  to  mention  them  at  present.  Tliere  is 
only  one  point,  on  which  I  must  say  a  few  words,  in 
order  to  prevent  misconstructions,  or  false  inferences 
from  what  I  have  asserted.  On  taking  leave  of  my 
audience,  I  noticed,  among  other  subjects,  which  v/ill 
be  matter  of  future  discussion,  the  conformity  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England  with  the  doctrines 
of  Scripture.  And  hence  was  deduced  the  inference 
(which  necessarily  follows,  if  those  premises  are  true) 
that  to  dissent  from  those  doctrines,  was  to  dissent 
without  a  real  cause.     From  this  declaraticn  no  can- 


Vm  PREFACE. 


did  Dissenter  will  conclude,  that  the  speaker  was  ani- 
mated by  a  spirit  of  persecution,  or  wished  that  reli- 
gion should  be  combated  by  force.  Though  I  am 
myself  convinced,  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of 
England  are  agreeable  to  Scripture;  though  I  am 
likewise  convinced  (what  I  did  not  express  in  the 
Lecture,  as  the  subject  did  not  require  it)  that  there 
is  nothing  in  the  discipline  of  our  Church,  which  is  in- 
consistent with  Scripture,  I  should  be  very  sorry  that 
any  man,  who  quietly  and  conscientiously  dissented 
from  either,  should  be  interrupted  in  the  exercise  of 
his  own  worships  or  his  own  opinions.  But  if  a  Pro- 
fessor of  Divinity  in  an  English  University,  standing 
in  the  University  pulpit,  and  addressing  himself  im- 
mediately to  the  members  of  that  University,  all  of 
whom  are  educated  in  the  Church,  and  most  of  them 
as  ministers  of  the  Church,  cannot  declare,  that  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  are  agreeable  to  Scripture, 
and  consequently  that  there  is  no  real  cause  to  dissent 
from  them,  if  under  such  circumstances,  and  before 
such  an  audience,  he  cannot  make  this  declaration, 
v/ithout  giving  offence  to  tliose,  who  are  of  a  different 
persuasion,  the  persons  so  offended  must  expect  some- 
thing more  than  the  free  exercise  of  their  own  opin- 
ions ;  they  must  be  unwilling  to  grant  to  the  Estab- 
lishment the  same  toleration  of  religious  sentiment, 
which  they  claim  and  enjoy  themselves.  These  re- 
marks are  so  obvious,  that  I  should  have  thought  it 
unnecessary  to  introduce  them,  if  I  had  not  received  a 


PREFACE.  IX 

letter  containing  reproaches  for  making  the  declara- 
tion in  question.* 

When,  according  to  the  plan  proposed  in  the  sec- 
ond Lecture,  the  time  shall  arrive  for  the  description 
of  that  branch  of  Divinity,  which  relates  to  the  Doc- 
trines of  the  Bible,  it  will  be  examined  with  all  the 
attention,  which  the  importance  of  the  subject  requires. 
But  to  enter  upon  this  branch,  before  those,  which 
precede  it,  have  been  fully  described,  would  defeat  the 

•  This  letter,  as  appears  from  the  post  mark,  was  put  into  the  post- 
office  at  Cambridge.  It  was  sent  on  Sept.  15,  more  than  three  months 
after  the  Lectures  were  finished,  but  only  three  days  after  the  manu> 
script  had  been  sent  to  the  printing-office  for  publication.  There  are 
various  indications  of  its  being  written  iji  a  disguised  hand.  No  name 
is  affixed  to  it :  but  it  appears  to  have  been  composed  by  a  person  not 
unacquainted  with  the  subject,  though  upon  the  whole  it  is  an  incohe- 
rent rhapsody.  The  writer  begins  with  expressing  his  surprise  at  the 
"  fase  assertion,"  as  he  calls  it,  contained  in  the  above  mentioned  de- 
claration. He  then  immediately  proceeds  to  correct  an  error,  which  in 
his  opinion  I  had  committed  on  a  fcrvier  occasion,  in  maintaining  tliat 
the  Articles  of  our  Church  are  not  Calvinistic,  though  "  everj'  person, 
who  has  read,  knows  (as  he  asserts)  that  the  authors  of  them  were  Cal- 
vinists."  But  the  letter  is  chicfiy  distinguished  by  the  spirit  of  intoler- 
ance, which  it  uniformly  breathes,  and  by  tlie  views  of  the  writer, 
which  it  too  manifestly  discovers.  In  these  respects  it  is  so  remarka- 
ble, that  I  at  first  intended  to  publish  it :  but,  as  it  is  too  long  for  in- 
sertion in  this  Preface,  I  will  quote  only  one  sentence.  Having  previ- 
ously extolled  the  present  state  of  religious  toleration  in  France,  which 
I  am  sure  no  English  Dissenter,  who  had  read  the  Articles  organiques 
des  Cultes  Protestans  in  the  late  French  Concordat,  would  wish  to  see 
adopted  in  this  country,  he  proceeds,  with  manifest  reference  to  the 
Church  of  England,  in  the  following  manner  :  "  Antichrist  must  fall.- 
the  late  events  on  the  Continent  prove,  that  the  blood  of  the  Saints  must  be 

avenged.^* From  this  single  sentence  a  tolerable  judgment  may  be 

formed,  botli  of  the  ternper,  and  of  the  txiishes  of  the  WTiter.  It  is  to  be 
hoped,  that  there  are  not  many,  who  with  the  same  sentiments  unite 
equal  zeal. 

2 


X ■  PREFACE. 

very  object  of  that  theological  order ^  without  which  it 
is  impossible  to  form  such  a  system  of  Theology,  as 
shall  exempt  us  from  the  danger  of  arguing  in  a  cir- 
cle. 

The  Lectures  now  published  were  delivered  in 
the  University  Church  on  six  successive  Saturdays, 
in  the  Easter  Term.  And  it  is  my  intention  to  give 
the  same  number  in  every  Easter  Term,  till  the 
Course  is  finished. 

Cambridge, 
Oct.  14,  1809. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


In  this  second  edition  very  few  alterations  have 
been  made,  and  those  only  such  as  occur  to  every  au- 
thor on  a  revisal  of  his  work.  It  was  printed  before 
the  first  edition  had  been  noticed  in  any  Review. 
But  in  the  interval  between  the  impression  and  the 
writing  of  this  Preface,  the  fifth  number  of  the  Quar- 
terly Review,  (where  honourable  mention  is  made  of 
the  Lectures,  for  which  I  beg  leave  to  express  my 
thanks)  has  noticed  (p.  210)  as  inaccurate,  a  para- 
graph at  the  beginning  of  the  second  Lecture,  which 
my  respect  for  that  Review  would  certainly  induce  me 
to  cancel,  if  I  did  not  entertain  a  hope,  that  I  could 
give  such  an  explanation,  as  would  satisfy  the  Re- 
viewer himself. 

At  the  beginning  of  that  Lecture,  before  I  intro- 
duced my  own  theological  arrangement,  which  the 
Quarterly  Reviewer  approves,  I  observed,  "  Theolog- 
"  ical  writers  are  far  from  being  unanimous,  either  in 
"  regard  to  the  number,  or  in  regard  to  the  kind  of  di- 
"  visions,  into  which  Theology  should  be  resolved, 
"  In  England  especially  so  little  has  been  determined 
"  on  this  point,  that  few  writers  agree  in  their  divi- 


Xll  PREFACE. 

"  sions  :  and  in  some  of  them  the  difference  is  sucli, 
"  that  one  should  hardly  suppose  they  were  analysing 
*'  the  same  subject."     In  support  of  this  observation, 
I  referred  to  two  writers,  no  less  distinguished  by 
their  learning  than  by  their  rank,  one  of  whom  divides 
Theologj^  into  four^  the  other  into  fourteen  classes. 
Here  the  Reviewer  remarks,  "  It  appears  to  us  that 
"  he  (the  author)  misunderstands  die  design  of  both 
"  these  Prelates.     They  seem  to  have  had  no  other 
*'  object  in  view,  than  the  recommendation  of  books, 
"  and  to  have  made  their  distribution,  not  for  the  di- 
"  rection  of  the  Student  in  arranging  the  order  of  his 
*'  studies,  but  solely  for  their  own  convenience  and 
"  that  of  their  readers.'*     Now  if  the  opinion  be  coV' 
recti  that  those  learned  writers  "  had  ;?o  other  object  in 
"  view,  than  the  recommendation  of  books,"  they  at 
any  rate  present  one  species  of  theological  division, 
and  as  in  this  species  they  are  so  unequal,  they  afford 
a  fair  instance  of  the  observation,  that  theological  wri- 
ters are  not  unanimous  in  respect  to  the  divisions  of 
Theology,  an  observation  which  was  made  in  such 
general  terms,  as  to  be  capable  of  including  every 
species  of  theological  division.     But  I  really  did  sup- 
pose that  they  had  another  object  in  view  :  I  suppos- 
ed, that  the  distribution  of  the  classes,  under  which 
the  books  were  arranged,  was  not  wholly  fortuitous: 
and  being  unable,  when  a  classification  is  once  intro- 
duced, to  discover  why  the  books  of  oiie  class  should 
be  placed  before  the  books  of  another  class,  unless  the 
author  of  the  classification  intends  that  those  of  the 
former  should  be  read  before  those  of  the  latter,  I  con- 


PREFACE.  XIU 

eluded,  that  whatever  might  be  their  primary  object, 
they  at  least  intended  to  unite  "  a  plan  of  study"  with 
**  a  classification  of  books."  In  this  conclusion  I  was 
confirmed  by  the  fact^  that  the  learned  Prelate,  who 
makes  the  four-fold  division,  really  has  observed,  and 
accurately  observed  the  principle  just  mentioned :  and 
on  this  very  account  I  commended  his  theological  ar- 
rangement, with  the  exception  of  the  last  class,  in 
which  a  ^wi^-division  would  have  rendered  the  classi- 
fication more  complete.  With  respect  to  the  other 
learned  Prelate,  though  I  could  not  discover  the  fact^ 
that  he  had  observed  the  principle  in  question,  and 
therefore  described  his  arrangement  as  less  judicious 
(which  implies  no  disrespect  to  his  general  learning,) 
I  supposed,  that  he  at  least  intended  \.q  make  his  clas- 
sification of  books  in  some  manner  subservient  to  that 
course  of  study,  which  he  himself  approved.  And 
though  in  my  own  opinion  the  course  of  study,  re- 
sulting from  this  classification,  is  less  judicious,  than 
the  course  of  study  resulting  from  the  other  classifica- 
tion, I  thought  that  I  was  not  unjust  in  concluding, 
that  he  really  had  such  a  course  of  study  in  contem- 
plation, because  he  himself  says  at  the  end  of  the  Pref- 
ace, "  I  subjoin  the  following  questions  with  the  ref- 
*•  erences  annexed,  in  order  to  shew  how  far  the  heads 
"  or  chapters  under  which  the  books  are  classed,  may 
"  be  useful  toward  forming  a  regular  course  ofstudij,''' 

Cambridge, 
April  25.  1810. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

Page 
Introductory  Remarks  on  the  Sttidy  of  Theology  -         16 

LECTURE  n. 

On  Theological  Arrangement.  Tlie  Author^s  Analysis^ 
and  Division  of  Theology  into  Seven  Branches         -          31 

LECTURE  m. 

An  account  of  IntrodTictions  to  the  Old  and  JS*ew  Testa- 
ment. History  of  Sacred  Criticism  in  the  early  and 
middle  Ages        ------.-49 

LECTURE  rV. 

T^is  History  continued  and  concluded         -        -         -       70 

LECTURE  V. 

The  Criticism  cf  the  Greek  Testament         -        -        .        §5 

LECTURE  VI. 

This  Subject  continued  to  the  formation  of  the  Textus  Re- 
ceptus -98 


LECTURE  I, 


Befor  E  I  commence  my  intended  Course  of  Lec- 
tures, it  may  be  proper  to  apologize  to  the  Universi- 
ty for  giving  them  in  English,  since  former  Margaret 
Professors  gave  Lectures,  na  nely,  the  few  which  they 
did  give,  in  Latin.      When  this  Professorship  was 
founded,  all  Lectures  were  given  in  Latin.     But  this 
custom,  in  regard  to  other  Lectures,  has  been  long 
abolished  :  and  even  in  the  foreign  Universities,  at 
least  in  the  Protestant  Universities  with  which  I  am 
acquainted,  it  is  now  usual  for  Professors  of  Divinity 
to  lecture,  not  in  Latin,  but  in  the  language  of  the 
country.     No  reason  therefore  can  be  assigned,  why 
an  exception  should  be  made  in  the  solitary  instance  of 
Lady  Margaret's  Professor  of  Divinity,  especially  as 
the  Foundress  herself,  in  the  deed  of  foundation,  has 
prescribed  no  rules  in  respect  to  the  language  of  the 
Lecture.     It  is  not  with  the  view  of  saving  myself 
trouble,  that  I  propose  to  depart  from  this  custom  of 
my  predecessors  :  for,  if  we  may  judge  from  their  ex- 
perience, two  or  three  lectures,  if  written  in  Latin, 
would  suffice  for  the  whole  time  of  holding  the  Pro- 
fessorship.    A  Latin  Lecture  in  Divinity  is  a  sort  of 
Concio  ad  Clerum :  and  we  all  know  that,  whoever 


IS  LECTURE  I. 

be  the  preacher,  a  Concio  ad  Clerum  is  delivered  to 
an  empty  pit,  and  to  empty  galleries.  The  mere  garb 
of  learning  has  long  ceased  to  be  imposing :  it  ih  in- 
formation, and  not  parade,  which  men  now  require, 
and  they  require  it  through  that  medium,  which  con- 
veys it  to  them  with  the  greatest  ease  and  perspicuity. 
It  is  no  wonder  therefore  that  Latin  lectures  are  desert- 
ed, or  that  former  Margaret  Professors  b.ave  read  with- 
out an  audience.  Now,  if  no  one  attends  the  lectures 
of  the  Margaret  Professor,  it  cannot  be  his  duty,  in- 
deed it  would  be  absurd,  to  continue  to  deliver  them. 
In  this  manner  the  most  valuable  Professorship  in  the 
gift  of  the  University  has  been  gradually  converted  in- 
to a  sinecure.  But  as  I  do  not  desire  that  it  should 
remain  so,  as  I  would  rather  perform  the  duties  of  my 
office,  than  seek  for  a  pretext  to  evade  them,  I  hope 
the  University  will  excuse  my  addressing  them  in  a 
language,  which  alone  can  enable  me  to  obtain  an  au- 
dience, alone  therefore  enable  me  to  do  my  duty. 

Another  deviation  from  the  custom  of  my  prede- 
cessors I  should  have  left  unnoticed,  were  it  not  that 
every  deviation  from  former  practice  is  liable  to  give 
offence.  It  is  well  known,  that  my  predecessors,  when 
they  gave  lectures,  read  them  from  the  professorial 
chair ;  and  without  doubt  it  was  originally  intended, 
that  divinity  lectures  should  be  given  in  the  divinity 
schools.  It  was  also  intended  that  lectures  in  law  and 
physic  should  be  given  in  the  schools,  which  are  ap- 
propriated to  those  faculties.  But  who  would  ever 
censure  a  Professor  of  law  or  physic  for  giving  lec- 
tures elsewhere  ?     And  w  ith  respect  even  to  divinity, 


LECTURE  I.  19 

who  has  ever  censured  either  the  late  or  the  present 
Norrissian  Professor  for  choosing  some  other  place  for 
the  delivery  of  theological  lectures  ?  Why  then  should 
the  Margaret  Professor  be  censured,  who,  in  leaving 
the  schools,  only  follows  their  example  ?  In  fact,  the 
divinity  ^schools,  whatever  may  have  been  their  origin- 
al destination,  are  calculated,  according  to  their  pres- 
ent construction,  for  the  mere  purpose  of  public  dis- 
putations. They  have  not  the  requisites  of  a  public 
lecture  room.  The  doctors  and  professors,  indeed, 
are  well  pro\ided  \^ith  seats,  and  some  few  seats  are 
provided  for  the  masters  of  arts  ;  but  in  the  space, 
which  is  allotted  to  the  undergraduates,  not  a  single 
seat  is  provided.  If  any  one  complains  then,  that  I 
hive  deserted  the  schools,  let  him  say  why  the  younger 
part  of  the  University  should  be  exposed  to  the  incon- 
venience of  standing  during  a  whole  lecture,  of  stand- 
ing on  a  cold  pavement,  when  convenient  benches  are 
provided  for  them  in  another  place  ?  It  is  true,  that 
I  have  not  exchanged  the  schools  for  that  place,  where 
one  of  my  learned  colleagues  gives  divinity  lectures  ; 
but  I  have  exchanged  them  for  a  place,  to  which  the 
subjects  of  discussion  are  certainly  appropriate.  Nor 
is  the  selection  of  this  place  a  matter  of  choice  only ; 
it  is  a  matter  of  necessity.  For  where  is  the  lecture 
room,  where  are  the  schools  in  this  University,  which, 
however  inconvenient,  or  however  crowded,  could 
contain  the  audience,  which  is  now  before  me  ?  I  shall 
proceed  therefore,  without  further  apology,  to  the  busi- 
ness, for  which  "\ve  are  here  assembled. 

The  Lectures,  which  I  propose  to  deliver,  will  re- 


20  LECTURE  I. 

late  to  every  branch  of  Theology.  Such  is  their  con- 
nexion, that  without  some  knowledge  of  the  whole,  it 
is  hardly  possible  to  form  a  due  estimate  of  any  part. 
Indeed,  whatever  be  the  business  of  our  study,  we 
should  previously  ask  what  are  the  objects  of  inquiry  ; 
for  till  this  question  has  been  answered,  we  know  not 
its  real  meaning.  In  the  first  place  therefore  the  sev- 
eral parts  of  Theology  must  be  described. 

In  the  next  place,  they  must  be  properly  arrang- 
ed. A  course  of  Lectures  may  contain  all  the  divi- 
sions and  sub-divisions,  into  which  Theology  is  capa- 
ble of  being  resolved  ;  but  unless  it  contains  them  in 
a  luminous  order,  it  never  can  produce  conviction  ;  it 
can  never  lead  to  that,  which  is  the  ultimate  object  of 
all  theological  study,  the  establishment  of  the  great 
truths  of  Christianity.  To  effect  this  purpose,  the 
several  parts  must  be  so  arranged,  that  the  one  may  be 
deduced  from  the  other  in  regular  succession.  The 
evil  consequences  which  follow  the  violation  of  this 
rule,  may  be  best  explained  by  an  example.  Sup- 
pose, that  a  Professor  of  Divinity  begins  his  course  of 
lectures  with  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Inspiration  ;  this 
doctrine,  however  true  in  itself,  or  however  certain  the 
arguments,  by  which  it  may  be  established,  cannot 
possibly,  in  that  stage  of  his  inquiry,  be  proved  to  the 
satisfaction  of  his  audience,  because  he  has  not  yet  es- 
tablished other  truths,  from  which  this  must  be  dedu- 
ced. For  whether  he  appeals  to  the  promises  of  Christ 
to  his  Apostles,  or  the  declarations  of  the  Apostles 
themselves,  he  must  take  for  granted,  that  those  prom- 
ises and  declarations  were  reallv  made ;    that  is,  he 


LECTURE  I.  21 

must  take  for  granted  the  authenticity  of  the  writings, 
in  which  those  promises  and  declarations  are  record- 
ed. But  how  is  it  possible,  that  conviction  should  be 
the  consequence  of  postulating,  instead  of  proving,  a 
fact  of  such  importance  ?  This  example  alone  is  suf- 
ficient to  shew  the  necessity  of  method  in  the  study  of 
Theology,  the  necessity  of  arranging  the  several  parts 
in  such  a  manner,  that  no  argument  be  founded  on  a 
proposition,  which  is  r.ot  already  proved.  For  if  (as 
is  too  often  the  case  in  theological  works)  we  under- 
take to  prove  a  proposition  by  the  aid  of  another,  which 
is  hereafter  to  be  proved,  the  inevitable  consequence 
is,  that  the  proposition  in  question  becomes  a  link  in 
the  chain,  by  which  we  establish  that  very  proposition, 
which  at  first  was  taken  for  granted.  Thus  we  prove 
premises  from  inferences,  as  well  as  inferences  from 
premises ;  or,  in  other  v/ords,  we  prove — nothing. 

Nor  is  it  sufficient  merely  to  describe  and  to  ar- 
range the  several  parts  of  Theology.  The  growids  of 
arrangement,  the  modes  of  connexion,  must  also  be 
distinctly  stated.  For  hence  only  can  be  deduced 
those  general  principles,  \\  ithout  which  the  student  in 
Divinity  will  never  be  able  to  judge  of  tlie  proofs, 
which  are  laid  before  him. 

When  we  have  proceeded  thus  far,  our  next  ob- 
ject must  be  to  learn  where  we  may  obtain  informa- 
tion on  the  manifold  subjects,  which  will  gradually 
come  under  discussion ;  that  is,  we  must  obtain  a 
knowledge  of  the  best  authors,  who  have  written  on 
those  subjects.  But  for  this  purpose  it  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  have  a  mere  catalogue  of  theological  books. 


22  LECTURE  I. 

arranged  alphabetically,  or  even  arranged  under  heads, 
unless  the  heads  themselves  are  reduced  to  a  proper 
system.  Nor  is  it  sufficient  to  inform  the  hearer  of 
the  titles  only  of  those  books  which  it  may  be  proper 
for  him  to  read  :  he  should  be  informed,  at  least  to  a 
certain  degree,  of  tlieir  contents :  he  should  be  inform- 
ed also  of  the  diiferent  modes,  in  which  the  same  sub- 
ject has  been  treated  by  different  authors,  and  of  the 
particular  objects,  which  each  of  them  had  in  view. 
Further,  since  many  excellent  treatises  have  been  pro- 
duced by  controversy,  and  many  by  other  occasions, 
which  it  is  always  useful,  and  sometimes  necessary  to 
know,  in  order  to  view  the  writings  themselves  in  their 
proper  light,  a  knowledge  of  theological  works  should 
be  accompanied  with  some  knowledge  of  the  persons 
who  wrote  them,  a  knowledge  of  their  general  charac- 
ters, of  the  times  in  which  they  lived,  and  of  the  situ- 
ations in  which  they  were  placed. 

Lastly  with  this  knowledge  of  authors,  if  it  be  prop- 
erly disposed,  may  be  united  a  knowledge  equally  in- 
structive and  entertaining,  a  knowledge  of  the  advance- 
ment or  decline  of  theological  learning,  a  knowledge 
of  how  much  or  how  little  has  been  performed  in  the 
different  ages  of  Christianity. 

A  course  of  Lectures  so  comprehensive  in  its  plan, 
as  to  embrace  the  manifold  objects,  which  have  been 
just  enumerated,  may  appear  too  much  for  one  lectur- 
er to  undertake,  especially  for  the  lecturer,  who  is  now 
addressing  you.  And,  even  if  he  had  ability  for  the 
undertaking,  it  might  still  be  apprehended,  that,  be- 
fore he  had  done,  the  patience  of  the  most  indulgent 


LECTURE  I.  23 

auditory  would  be  exhausted.  But  it  would  be  for- 
eign to  the  very  plan  of  these  Lectures  to  deliver  co- 
pious dissertations  on  single  points  of  Divinity,  in 
which  case  they  might  never  be  brought  to  a  conclu- 
sion. They  relate  indeed  to  all  the  branches  of  Di- 
vinity, however  minute ;  they  describe,  as  well  the 
fruits  which  have  been  gathered,  as  the  store-houses 
in  which  the  fruits  are  preserved ;  but  they  do  not 
contain  the  fruits  themselves.  Or  they  may  be  com- 
pared with  a  map  and  a  book  of  directions,  from  which 
the  traveller  may  learn  the  road  which  he  must  take, 
the  stages  which  he  must  go,  and  the  places  where  he 
must  stop,  in  order  to  arrive  with  the  greatest  ease  and 
safety  at  his  journey's  end.  Descriptions  of  this  kind 
are  no  less  useful  in  travelling  through  the  paths  of 
knowledge,  than  in  travelling  over  distant  lands.  And 
it  is  a  description  of  this  kind,  which  v/ill  be  attempt- 
ed in  these  Lectures. 

Here  it  may  be  asked,  What  is  the  end  of  the 
journey,  to  which  these  Lectures  are  intended  to  lead  ? 
Is  it  the  object  cf  elements,  thus  general  and  compre- 
hensive, to  generalize  Christianity  itself,  to  represent  it 
in  the  form  cf  a  general  theorem,  from  which  individ- 
ual creeds  are  to  be  deduced  as  so  many  corollaries  ? 
Or  is  it  their  object  to  maintain  one  particular  creed 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  ?  The  latter  may  ap- 
pear to  be  less  liberal  than  the  former,  but  it  is  only 
so  in  appearance ;  while  the  advantages  ascribed  to 
the  former,  are  as  imaginary,  as  those  possessed  by 
the  latter  are  substantial.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive 
any  thing  more  painful  or  more  injurious  to  the  stu- 


24  LECTURE  I. 

dent  in  divinity,  than  to  be  left  in  a  state  of  uncertain- 
ty, what  he  is  at  last  to  believe  or  disbelieve.     Where 
no  particular  system  of  faith  is  inculcated,  where  a  va- 
riety of  objects  is  represented  without  discrimination, 
the  minds  of  the  hearers  must  become  so  unsettled, 
they  must  become  so  bewildered  in  regard  to  the 
choice  of  thtir  creed,  as  to  be  in  danger  of  choosing 
none  at  all.     The  attempt  to  generalize  Christianity, 
in  order  to  embrace  a  variety  of  creeds,  will  ultimately 
lead  to  the  exclusion  of  all  creeds ;  it  will  have  a  sim- 
ilar effect  with  Spinosa's  doctrine  of  Pantheism ;    it 
will  produce  the  very  opposite  to  that,  which  the  name 
itself  imports.     And,  as  Pantheism,  though  nominal- 
ly the  reverse,  is  in  reality  but  another  term  for  Athe- 
ism, so  Christianity,  when  generalized,  is  no  Christi- 
anity at  all.     The  very  essentials  of  Christianity  must 
be  omitted,  before  we  can  obtain  a  form  so  general,  as 
not  to  militate  against  any  of  the  numerous  systems, 
which  in  various  ages  have  been  denominated  Chris- 
tian.   Some  particular  system  therefore  must  be  adopt- 
ed, as  the  object  and  end  of  our  theological  study. 
What  particular  system  must  ho.  the  o!  )ject  and  end 
of  our  theological  study,  cannot  be  a  question  in  this 
place  :    it  cannot  be  a  question  with  men  who  are 
studying  with  the  very  view  of  filling  conspicuous 
stations  in  the  Church  of  England.    That  system  then, 
which  was  established  at  the  Reformation,  and  is  con- 
tained in  our  liturgy,  our  articles,  and  our  homilies,  is 
the  system,  to  which  all  our  labours  must  be  ultimate- 
ly directed. 

If  it  be  objected,  that  the  student  will  thus  be  pre- 


LECTURE  I.  25 

judiced  in  favour  of  a  particular  system  before  he  has 
had  an  opportunity  of  comparing  it  with  others,  one 
answer  to  the  objection  has  been  already  given,  name- 
ly, that,  however  specious  the  plan  of  teaching  Chris- 
tianity on  a  broad  basis,  it  is  incapable  of  being  reduc- 
ed to  practice ;  that,  if  various  s}  stems  be  taught,  they 
must  be  taught,  not  in  union,  but  in  succession ;  and 
consequently,  that  at  least  in  point  of  time  some  one 
system  must  have  the  precedence.  Further,  as  a  com- 
parison of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England 
with  the  doctrines  of  other  churches,  will  form  a  part 
of  these  very  lectures ;  as  a  review  will  be  taken  of 
other  systems,  when  our  own  has  been  examined,  ^nd 
no  advice  will  be  given  to  shrink  from  inquiry,  I  hope 
I  shall  not  be  accused  of  attempting  to  fetter  the  judg- 
ment of  my  hearers  in  a  matter  of  such  importance  as 
religious  faith. 

After  all,  should  the  selection  of  a  particular  sys- 
tem as  the  object  of  our  primary  consideration  be  at- 
tended with  the  unavoidable  consequence,  that  a  pre- 
dilection be  formed  in  regard  to  that  system,  which 
may  render  us  less  disposed  to  listen  to  the  claims  of 
any  other,  than  perhaps  strict  impartiality  might  re- 
quire, it  may  be  asked,  whether  such  consequence  is 
really  a  matter  of  regret  ?  Is  it  a  thing  to  be  lament- 
ed, that  members  of  the  Church  of  England  are  edu- 
cated with  prepossessions  in  favour  of  the  national 
church  ?  Or  is  it  want  of  candour  in  a  Professor, 
who,  after  an  examination  of  other  systems,  can  dis- 
cover none,  which  he  thinks  so  good  as  his  own,  to 
shew  more  regard  to  this  system  than  to  any  other  ? 


26  LECTURE  I. 

Can  it  be  blameable  at  a  season,  when  every  exertioa 
is  making  by  the  very  means  of  education,  by  educa- 
tion conducted  both  openly  and  privately,  to  alienate 
the  rising  generation  from  the  established  church,  can 
it  be  blameable,  or  rather  is  it  not  our  bounden  duty, 
at  such  a  season,  to  call  forth  all  our  energies,  in  mak- 
ing education  on  our  part  subservient  to  the  establish- 
ed church  ? 

That  theological  learning  is  necessary  to  make  a 
good  divine  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  a  position, 
which  a  learned  audience  will  certainly  be  disposed  to 
admit.  And  this  position  will  appear  still  more  evi- 
dent, when  we  consider,  what  it  is,  which  constitutes 
the  chief  difference  between  the  learned  and  the  un- 
learned in  Theology.  It  is  not  the  ability  to  read  the 
New  Testament  in  Greek,  which  makes  a  man  a  learn- 
ed divine,  though  it  is  one  of  the  ingredients,  without 
which  he  cannot  become  so.  The  main  difference 
consists  in  this,  that  while  the  unlearned  in  divinity 
obtain  only  a  knowledge  of  what  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity arcy  the  learned  in  divinity  know  also  the 
grounds,  on  which  they  rest.  And  that  this  knowl- 
edge ought  to  be  obtained  by  every  man  who  assumes 
the  sacred  office  of  a  Christian  teacher,  nothing  but 
the  blindest  enthusiasm  can  deny.  If  St.  Peter,  in 
addressing  himself  to  the  numerous  converts  of  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  Bithynia,  required 
that  they  should  be  always  ready  to  give  a  reason  of 
the  hojie  that  was  in  them,  how  much  more  necessa- 
ry must  he  have  thought  this  ability  in  those,  who 
were  set  apart  to  be  teachers  of  the  Gospel  ?     But 


LECTURE  I.  27 

ask  any  one  of  those  illiterate  teachers,  with  which  this 
country  unfortunately  abounds,  ask  liim  why  he  is  a 
Christian  and  not  a  Mahometan  ;  ask  hitn  why  he  be* 
lieves  that  Christianity  is  a  real  revelation,  and  Ma- 
hometanism  only  a  pretended  one  ?  He  would  an- 
swer, either  with  a  -s^acant  stare,  or  with  a  reproach  at 
the  impiety  of  the  question,  as  if  it  had  been  propos- 
ed vvith  any  other  view  than  to  tr}'  his  knowledge.  Not 
so  the  learned  divine  :  he  would  enter  into  those  his- 
torical and  critical  arguments,  of  which  the  unlettered 
enthusiast  has  no  conception,  but  by  which  alone  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospel  history  can  be  established, 
by  which  alone  the  miracles  recorded  in  it  can  bie  con- 
firmed, by  which  alone  the  claims  of  Christianity  to  a 
divine  origin  can  be  proved  legitimate. 

There  is  no  ground  then  for  that  distinction  be- 
tween science  and  religion,  that  the  one  is  an  object 
of  reason,  the  other  an  object  of  faith.  Religion  is  an 
object  of  both  ;  it  is  this  very  circumstance,  which 
distinguishes  the  unlearned  from  the  learned  in  divin- 
ity ;  while  the  former  has  faith  only,  the  latter  has  the 
same  faith  accompanied  with  reason.  The  former 
believes  the  miracles  and  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as 
being  recorded  in  the  New  Testament ;  the  latter  also 
believes  the  miracles  and  doctrines  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  he  believes  them,  because  by 
the  help  of  his  reason  he  knows,  what  the  other  does 
not,  that  the  record  is  true. 

But  is  not  religion,  it  may  be  said,  a  matter  of  gen- 
eral import  ?  Does  it  not  concern  all  men,  the  un- 
learned, as  well  as  the  learned  ?     Can  it  be  true  then, 


SS  LECTURE  I. 

that  such  a  literary  apparatus  is  necessary  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reiii^ioR  ?  And  would  not  at  least  nine-tenths 
of  mankind  be,  in  that  case,  excluded  from  its  bene- 
fits ?  Certainly  not  from  its  practical  benefits,  which 
alone  are  wanted,  as  they  alone  are  attainable,  by  the 
generality  of  mankind.  Men,  whose  education  and 
habits  have  not  prepared  them  for  profound  inquiry, 
whose  arteiitio.j  is  wholly  directed  to  the  procuring  of 
the  necessaries  of  life,  depend,  and  must  depend,  for 
the  truth  of  the  doctrines  m  hich  are  taught  them,  on 
the  authority  (^f  their  teachers  and  preachers,  of  whom 
it  is  taken  for  granted,  that  they  have  investigated, 
and  really  know  the  truth.  But  is  this  any  reason 
why  men,  who  are  set  apart  for  the  ministry,  should 
likewise  be  satisfied  with  taking  things  upon  trust? 
Does  it  follow,  because  a  task  is  neglected  by  those, 
who  have  neither  leisure  nor  ability  to  undertake  it, 
that  it  must  likewise  be  neglected  by  those,  who  pos- 
sess them  both  ?  Ought  we  not  rather  to  conclude, 
that  in  proportion  to  the  inability  of  the  hearers  to  in- 
vestigate for  themselves,  in  proj^iortion  therefore  to  the 
confidence  which  they  must  ]">lace  in  their  instructor, 
their  instructor  should  endeavour  to  convince  himself 
of  the  truth  of  his  doctrines  ?  And  how  is  this  con- 
viction, this  real  knowledge  of  the  truth  to  be  attained 
without  learning? 

But  investigation,  it  is  said,  frequently  leads  to 
doubts,  where  tliere  were  none  before.  So  much  the 
better.  If  a  thing  is  false,  it  ought  not  to  be  received. 
If  a  thing  is  true,  it  can  never  lose  in  the  end,  by  in- 
quiry.    On  the  contrary,  the  conviction  of  that  man, 


LECTURE  I.  29 

who  has  perceived  difficuhies  and  overcome  them,  is 
always  stronger,  than  the  persaasion  of  him  who  nev- 
er heard  of  their  existence.  The  danger,  which  is 
apprehended,  arises  from  superficial  knowledge,  which 
carries  a  man  just  far  enough,  to  enable  him  to  per- 
ceive difficulties,  and  there  leaves  him.  In  fact,  it  is 
not  learning,  but  want  of  learning,  which  leads  to  er- 
ror in  religion.  It  was  the  want  of  learning  which  oc- 
casioned the  abuses  of  religion  in  the  middle  ages  ;  it 
was  the  learning  of  our  early  reformers,  by  which 
those  abuses  were  corrected.  Nor  is  that  variety  of 
religious  sentiment,  by  which  this  nation  is  distracted, 
to  be  ascribed  to  learning.  On  the  contrar}'',  the 
Icuiers  of  that  sect,  which  is  now  the  most  numerous, 
rather  reprobate,  than  encourage  learning ;  and  that, 
in  this  respect,  their  practice  agrees  with  their  princi- 
ples, is  known  to  every  man,  who  has  once  listened  to 
their  harangues.  Let  no  one  therefore  apprehend, 
that  theological  learning  will  create  divisions  in  the 
Church  of  England ;  let  no  one  apprehend,  that  it  will 
now  undo  what  it  did  at  the  Reformation.  It  is  in 
fact  the  only  method  of  ensuring  to  us  the  advantages 
of  the  Reformation,  by  guarding  against  enthusiasm 
on  the  one  hand,  and  infidelity  on  the  other. 

That  knowledge  pufFeth  up,  may  be  true  of  some 
kinds  of  knowledge  ;  and  it  might  certainly  be  affirm- 
ed of  that  kind,  to  w  hich  St.  Paul  alludes  in  the  pas- 
sage so  often  misapplied  by  unlettered  teachers,  in 
vindication  of  their  own  defects.  St.  Peter  com* 
mands  us  to  add  to  our  virtue  knowledge  ;  and  St. 
Paul  himself  complains  elsewhere  of  those,  who,  in  re- 


30  LECTURE  I. 

ligious  matters,  have  zeal  which  is  not  according  to 
knowledge.  The  more  we  advance  in  tlie  study  of 
Divinity,  the  more  Hkely  are  we  to  learn  humility ; 
the  most  profound  Divines  are  generally  men  of  mod- 
est manners  ;  and  spiritual  pride  and  vanity  is  chiefly 
to  be  found  among  those,  who  are  the  least  distin- 
guished for  theological  learning. 

We  have  every  reason  therefore  to  persevere  in 
the  study  of  Divinity ;  there  is  none  whatever  to  dis- 
suade us  from  it.  We  have  every  reason  to  applaud 
the  wisdom  of  our  illustrious  founders,  who  were  not 
of  opinion,  that  it  is  easier  to  become  a  good  divine, 
than  a  good  mechanic  ;  who  were  not  of  opinion,  that 
the  head  requires  less  exercise  than  the  hands ;  or 
that,  if  a  seven  years'  apprenticeship  is  necessary,  to 
learn  the  manual  operations  of  a  common  trade,  a  less 
time  is  requsite  for  the  intellectual  attainments  of  a 
Christian  teacher.  No.  They  required  a  two -fold 
apprenticeship  to  Divinity ;  a  seven  years'  study  of 
the  liberal  arts,  as  preparatory  to  the  study  of  Divini- 
ty, and  another  seven  years'  study  of  Divinity  itself, 
before  the  student  was  admitted  to  a  degree  in  that 
profession. 

In  conformity  with  the  principles  which  directed 
our  ancestors,  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  the 
Foundress  of  this  Professorship,  and,  I  hope,  with  the 
approbation  of  my  audience,  I  shall  proceed  therefore 
next  Saturday,  at  the  same  hour,  to  develop  the  plan, 
already  announced  in  this  Lecture. 


LECTURE  11. 


In  the  preceding  Lecture  it  was  observed,  that  on 
our  entrance  to  the  study  of  Divinity,  we  should  en- 
deavour in  the  first  place  to  obtain  a  knowledge  of 
the  parts  or  branches,  of  which  it  consists  ;  and  in  the 
second  place,  a  knowledge  of  the  manner,  in  which 
those  parts  or  branches  should  be  arranged. 

.Theological  writers  are  far  from  being  unanimous, 
either  in  regard  to  the  number,  or  in  regard  to  the 
kind  of  divisions,  into  which  Theology  should  be  re- 
solved. In  England  especially,  so  little  has  been  de- 
termined on  this  point,  that  k\v  writers  agree  in  their 
divisions  ;  and  in  some  of  them  the  difference  is  such^ 
that  one  should  hardly  suppose  they  were  analysing 
the  same  subject. 

A  learned  Prelate  in  our  sister  University,  who 
has  published  a  list  of  books  recommended  to  the 
younger  clergy,  has  made  not  less  than  fourteen  di- 
visions in  Theology,  which  he  has  arranged  in  the 
following  order  :  i.  The  first  division  relates  to 
Practical  and  Pastoral  Duties.  ii.  Devotion,  in. 
Religion  in  general,  iv.  Revealed  Religion,  v.  The 
Scriptures,    vi.  Comments  on  the  Scriptures,     vii. 


32  LECTURE  II. 

Concordances,  &c.  viii.  Doctrines,  ix.  Creeds, 
Articles,  Catechism,  and  Liturgy.  x.  Sacraments 
and  Rites,  (subdivided  into  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, and  Confirmation),  xi.  Constitution  and  Estab- 
lishment of  the  Church  of  England,  xii.  Ecclesias- 
tical History,  xiii.  Ecclesiastical  Law.  xiv.  Mis- 
cellaneous subjects. — Then  comes  a  second  list,  in 
which  these  fourteen  divisions  are  repeated ;  and  last- 
ly a  third,  in  which  they  are  exchanged  for  another 
set,  amounting  to  seventeen,  which  it  would  be  really 
tedious  to  enumerate.  Indeed  throughout  the  whole 
of  this  theological  arrangement  there  is  nothing  like 
system  to  be  discovered :  no  reason  is  assignable  for 
the  peculiar  position  of  any  one  head  :  nor  does  their 
disposition  in  any  way  contribute  to  that,  which  should 
be  the  primary  object  of  every  writer — perspicuity. 

A  more  judicious  Prelate  of  our  own  University, 
in  his  Preface  to  his  Elements  of  Christian  Theology, 
divides  the  subject  into  four  parts.  The  first  relates' 
to  the  Exposition  of  the  Scriptures  ;  the  second  to 
the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Scriptures ;  the  third  to 
the  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  the  fourth  to  Miscellaneous  subjects,  including 
Sermons  and  Ecclesiastical  History. — In  this  arrange- 
ment there  is  method.  For  the  Bible  must  l)e  un- 
derstood, before  we  can  prove  its  divine  authority ; 
and  both  of  these  tasks  must  be  performed,  beiore  we 
can  proceed  to  deduce  articles  of  faith.  Sermons,  it 
is  true,  should  not  be  placed  in  the  same  class  with 
Ecclesiastical  History  ;  and  in  all  systematic  arrai\ge- 
ments,  the  term  "  miscellaneous"  should  be  wholly 


LECTURE  II.  3» 

avoided.  Where  a  classification  is  complete,  the 
classes  must  be  such,  that  every  individual  article 
may,  in  some  one  of  them,  find  its  proper  place. 

A  four-fold  division  of  Theology  is  a  division, 
which  has  been  long  in  use  among  the  German  di- 
vines. With  them  likewise  the  first  division  relates 
to  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures,  and  is  termed  Ex- 
positor}^ Theology.  The  second  is  called,  by  way  of 
eminence.  Systematic  Theology :  it  includes  both 
evidences  and  doctrines.  The  third  division  is  called 
Historical  Theology :  it  comprises  the  internal,  as  well 
as  external  history  of  the  Church.  The  fourth  and 
last  division  is  called  Pastoral  Theology,  comprehend- 
ing such  subjects,  as  relate  especially  to  the  duties  of 
a  parish  priest. 

This  division,  though  not  universal  among  foreign 
divines,  is  at  least  the  prevailing  one,  and  the  best, 
which  has  been  hitherto  introduced. 

To  attempt  therefore  the  introduction  of  any  other 
may  appear  to  savour  of  presumption.  But  as  the 
inconveniences,  which  I  have  felt  from  all  former  ar- 
rangements, during  a  twenty  years*  study  of  this  par- 
ticular subject,  have  suggested  such  modifications,  as 
seem  at  least  to  answer  the  purpose  of  theological  or- 
der, the  sole  object  of  which  either  is,  or  should  be, 
to  represent  the  several  parts  of  Theology  according 
to  their  connexions  and  dependences,  a  theological 
arrangement,  formed  on  this  principle,  will  be  attempt- 
ed in  the  present  Lecture. 

That  we  should  commence  our  theological  studies 
with  the  study  of  that  Book,  from  which  all  Cliristian 
5 


34  LECTURE  II. 

Theology  is  derived,  is  a  proposition,  which  can  haid- 
ly  require  demonstration.  That  book,  l^y  which  eve- 
ry Christian  professes  to  regulate  his  rehgious  creed, 
that  book,  of  which  our  own  Church  declares,  that 
*'  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should 
be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,"  is  of  course  the 
primary  object  of  religious  inquiry.  It  is  a  fountain, 
at  which  every  man  must  draw  in  preference  even  to 
the  clearest  of  the  streams,  which  flow  from  it.  In- 
deed, if  we  neglect  to  draw  there,  we  shall  never  know, 
whether  the  streams,  which  flow  from  it,  are  pure  or 
turbid. 

But  the  Bible  may  be  studied  in  such  a  variety  of 
ways,  there  are  so  many  points  of  view,  from  which  it 
requires  to  be  examined,  and  the  accuracy  of  our  con- 
clusions depends  so  much  on  the  order ^  in  which  these 
several  surveys  are  taken,  that  it  is  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance to  determine  where  we  should  begin.  We 
must  establish  the  Authenticity  of  the  Bible,  the  Cred- 
ibility of  the  Bible,  the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Bible, 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible,  the  Doctrines  of  the  Bi- 
ble. Now  that  we  cannot  begin  \\\l\\  the  Inspiration 
of  the  Bible  appears  from  what  was  said  in  the  preced- 
ing Lecture.  Nor  can  we  begin  with  the  Doctrines 
of  the  Bible;  for  till  we  have  proved  its  divine  au- 
thority, its  doctrines  have  not  the  force  of  obligation. 
Nor  can  we  begin  with  its  Divine  Authority,  or,  in 
other  words,  with  the  Evidences  for  the  divine  origin 
of  our  religion.  For  these  evidences  are  arguments 
deduced  from  the  Bible  itself,  and  of  course  presup- 


LECTURE  II.  35 

pose  that  the  Bible  is  true.  The  authenticity  of  the 
Bible  therefore  must  be  previously  established,  or  the 
evidences,  as  they  are  called,  have  no  foundation, 
whereon  to  rest.  But  no  man  can  undertake  to  prove 
the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  till  he  thoroughly  under- 
stands it.  The  interpretation  of  the  Bible  therefore  is 
manifestly  one  of  the  first  parts  or  branches  of  Theol- 
ogy. 

It  deserves  however  to  be  considered,  whether  a 
branch  of  Theology,  hitherto  unnoticed  in  these  Lec- 
tures, is  not  entitled  to  a  still  higher  rank.  I  mean 
the  Criticism  of  the  Bible.  In  that  four-fold  division, 
which  I  have  already  stated,  both  the  criticism  and  the 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  are  included  in  the  first  di- 
vision. But  the  operations  of  criticism,  and  the  ope- 
rations of  interpretation  are  so  distinct,  that  they  ought 
not,  however  subdivided,  to  be  placed  in  the  same 
class.  But  if  we  refer  them  to  separate  classes,  parts, 
or  branches,  we  must  be  careful  to  refer  them  in  such 
a  manner,  as  not  to  violate  the  principle,  which  we  ap- 
ply to  the  other  branches.  Now  the  criticism  of  the, 
Bible  is  a  branch  of  such  extent,  it  so  encircles  the 
interpretation  of  the  Bible,  that,  however  different  their 
operations,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  where  the  sepa- 
ration shall  begin.  There  is  one  department  of  sacred 
criticism,  in  which  at  least  its  application  would  be 
very  inefficient,  if  the  Bible  were  not  already  under- 
stood. But  there  is  another  department,  which  we 
may  apply,  as  well  as  learn,  even  before  we  begin  to 
interpret  the  Bible.  And  we  shall  find  that  it  is  ne* 
cessary  so  to  do. 


36  LECTURE  II. 

When  we  attempt  to  expound  a  work  of  high  an- 
tiquity, which  has  passed  through  a  variety  of  copies, 
both  ancient  and  modern,  both  WTitten  and  printed, 
copies  which  differ  from  each  other  in  very  numerous 
instances,  we  should  have  some  reason  to  believe,  that 
the  copy  or  edition,  which  we  undertake  to  interpret, 
approaches  as  nearly  to  the  original,  as  it  can  be 
brought  by  human  industry,  or  human  judgment. 
Or,  to  speak  in  the  technical  language  of  criticism, 
before  we  expound  an  author,  wc  should  procure  the 
most  correct  text  of  that  author.  But  in  a  work  of 
such  importance  as  the  Bible,  we  should  confide  in 
the  bare  assertion  of  no  man,  with  respect  to  the  ques- 
tion, in  what  copy  or  edition  either  the  Greek  or  the 
Hebrew  text  is  contained  most  correctly.  We  should 
endeavour  to  obtain  sufficient  information  on  this  sub- 
ject, to  enable  us  to  judge  for  ourselves  :  and  the  in- 
formation, which  is  necessary  for  this  purpose,  may 
be  obtained,  even  before  we  are  acquahited  with  any 
other  branch  of  Theology.  For  when  a  passage  is 
differently  worded  in  different  copies,  or,  to  speak  in 
technical  terms,  when  it  has  various  readings,  the 
question,  which  of  those  readings  is  probably  the  orig- 
inal or  genuine  reading,  must  be  determined  by  au- 
thorities, and  by  rules,  similar  to  those,  which  are 
applied  to  classic  authors.  The  study  of  sacred  criti- 
cism therefore,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  obtaining  of  a 
correct  text,  may  precede  the  study  of  every  other 
branch  :  but,  if  it  may^  there  are  obvious  reasons,  why 
it  should.  And,  if  that  department  of  it,  which  relates 
to  the  genuineness  of  whole  books,  belongs  on  one 


LECTURE  II.  Sr 

account  to  a  later  period  of  theological  study,  it  may 
still  on  another  account  be  referred  even  to  the  first. 
Though  the  application  or  the  practice  of  it  requires 
the  assistance  of  another  branch,  yet  a  knowledge  of 
its  principles  may  be  previously  obtained.  Now  the 
study  of  sacred  criticism  produces  an  habit  of  accu- 
rate investigation,  which  will  be  highly  beneficial  to 
us  in  our  future  theological  inquiries.  Its  influence, 
also  is  such,  that  it  pervades  every  other  part  of  The- 
ology :  and,  as  our  notions  in  this  part  are  clear  or 
obscure,  our  conclusions  in  other  parts  will  be  distinct 
or  confused.  In  short,  it  is  a  branch,  which  affords 
nutriment  and  life .  to  all  the  other  branches,  which 
must  become  more  or  less  vigorous^  in  proportion  as 
this  branch  either  flourishes  or  decays.  To  Sacred 
Criticism  then  the  foremost  rank  is  due. 

The  reproaches,  which  have  been  made,  and  the 
dangers,  which  have  been  ascribed  to  it,  proceed  only 
irom  the  want  of  knowing  its  real  value.  It  is  not  the 
object  of  sacred  criticism  to  expose  the  Word  of  God 
to  the  uncertainties  of  human  conjecture  :  its  object 
is  not  to  weaken,  and  much  less  to  destroy  the  edifice, 
which  for  ages  has  been  the  subject  of  just  veneration. 
Its  primary  object  is  to  shew  the  firmness  of  that  foun- 
dation, on  which  the  sacred  edifice  is  built,  to  prove 
the  genuineness  of  the  materials,  of  which  the  edifice 
is  constructed.  It  is  employed  in  the  confutation  of 
objections,  which,  if  made  by  ignorance,  can  be  re- 
moved only  by  knowledge.  On  the  other  hand,  if  in 
the  progress  of  inquiry  excrescences  should  be  dis- 
covered, which  violate  the  symmetry  of  the  original 


is  LECTURE  II. 

fabric,  which  betray  a  mixture  of  thehuinaii  with  the 
divine,  of  interpolations,  v/hich  the  authority  or  arti- 
fice of  man  has  engrafted  on  the  oracles  of  God,  it  is 
the  duty  of  sacred  criticism  to  detect  the  spurious,  and 
remove  it  from  the  genuine.  For  it  is  not  less  blamea- 
ble  to  accept  what  is  false,  than  to  reject  what  is  true : 
it  is  not  less  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  religion 
to  ascribe  the  auihority  of  Scripture  to  that  which  is 
not  Scripture,  than  to  refuse  our  acknowledgment, 
where  such  authority  exists.  Nor  should  we  forget, 
that,  if  we  resolve  at  all  events  to  retain  what  has  no 
authority  to  support  it,  we  remove  at  once  the  criteri- 
on, which  distinguishes  truth  from  falsehood,  we  in- 
volve the  spurious  and  the  genuine  in  the  same  fate, 
and  thus  deprive  ourselv^es  of  the  power  of  ever  ascer- 
taining what  is  the  real  text  of  the  sacred  writings. 

But  so  far  is  sacred  criticism  from  exposing  the 
word  of  God  to  the  uncertainties  of  conjecture,  that 
there  is  no  principle  more  firmly  resisted  in  sacred 
criticism  than  the  admission  of  conjectural  emenda- 
tion, of  emendation  not  founded  on  documents.  In 
the  application  of  criticism  to  classic  authors,  conjec- 
tural emendations  are  allowable.  There  such  liberties 
can  do  no  harm  either  to  the  critic,  or  to  his  readers : 
they  affect  no  truth,  either  religious  or  moral.  But 
the  case  is  widely  different,  when  conjectural  emenda- 
tion is  applied  to  the  sacred  writings.  It  then  ceases 
to  be  merely  an  exercise  of  ingenuity  :  it  becomes  a 
vehicle  for  the  propagation  of  religious  opinion :  and 
passages  have  been  altered,  in  defiance  of  all  authority, 
lor  the  sole  purpose  of  procuring  support  to  a  partic- 


LECTURE  II.  -39 

iilar  creed.  It  is  true,  that  we  have  many  at  least  in- 
genious conjectures  on  the  Greek  Testament,  which 
come  not  within  this  description.  But  even  such 
conjectures  should  never  be  received  in  the  text.  If 
one  kind  were  admitted,  it  might  be  difficult  to  ex- 
clude anothCT,  since  the  line  of  discrimination  is  not 
always  apparent.  Thus  the  Bible  would  cease  to  be 
a  common  standard ;  it  would  assume  as  many  forms, 
as  there  are  Christian  parties.  Now  that  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  which  above  all  others  deserves 
the  name  of  a  critical  edition,  is  founded  on  this  avow- 
ed principle,  JVil  mutetur  e  conjectura, 

I  have  been  more  diffuse  on  this  subject,  than  the 
present  Lecture  would  otherwise  require,  lest  any  one 
should  have  imbibed  a  prejudice  against  that  branch 
of  Theology,  to  which  I  have  assigned  the  foremost 
rank. 

Having  thus  properly  prepared  ourselves  for  the 
study  of  the  Bible,  and  having  procured  the  best  crit- 
ical editions  of  it,  we  may  then  proceed  to  its  exposi- 
tion, or  interpretation.  For  this  purpose  we  must  ob- 
tain a  knowledge  of  various  subjects,  \vhich  have  ref- 
erence either  to  the  Old  or  to  the  New  Testament* 
We  must  study  what  may  be  comprised  under  the  gen- 
eral name  of  Jewish  Antiquities :  nor  must  we  nf^glect 
to  obtain  similar  information  in  regard  to  other  nations,, 
who  are  recorded  in  die  Bible,  whether  it  relate  to 
their  civil,  or  to  their  religious  establishments.  The 
state  of  literature,  the  peculiar  modes  of  thinking,  tlie 
influence  of  false  philosophy,  either  on  the  Jews,  or  on 
their  neighbours,  are  likewise  subjects,  which  demand 


40  LECTURE  II. 

our  attention.  A  knowledge  of  history,  as  far  as  it 
regards  the  Bible,  is  also  necessary,  not  merely  to  elu- 
cidate the  historical,  but  to  explain  the  prophetical 
parts.  And,  in  aid  of  histor}'-,  it  is  further  necessary 
that  we  should  understand  biblical  chronology,  and 
biblical  geography.  On  all  these  subjects  we  are  so 
well  provided  with  information,  through  the  industry 
of  our  predecessors,  in  works  hereafter  to  be  mention- 
ed, that  a  knowledge  of  these  subjects  is  more  easily 
attainable,  than  the  apparent  extent  of  them  might  in- 
duce us  to  suppose. 

But  the  qualification,  next  to  be  mentioned,  as  ne- 
cessary for  a  good  interpreter  of  the  Bible  is  not  of  so 
easy  attainment,  namely,  the  knowledge  of  some  fixed 
rule  or  principle,  by  which  we  may  direct  our  judg- 
ments, amid  the  discordant  interpretations  of  biblical 
commentators.  That  all  men  should  agree  in  adopt- 
ing one  rule  of  interpretation,  is  no  more  to  be  expect- 
ed, than  that  all  men  should  agree  in  one  religious 
creed.  The  very  first  principle  of  interpretation, 
namely  that  the  real  meaning  of  a  passage  is  its  literal 
or  grammatical  meaning,  that,  as  the  writer  himself 
intended  to  apply  it,  so  and  no  otherwise  the  reader 
must  take  it,  this  principle,  from  which  no  expounder 
of  any  other  work  would  knowingly  depart,  is  expressly 
rejected  by  many  commentators  on  the  Bible,  not  only 
among  the  Jews,  who  set  the  example  in  their  Tar- 
gums,  but  also  among  Christians,  who  have  followed 
that  example  in  their  comments  and  paraphrases.  It 
would  be  foreign  to  the  present  Lecture  to  discuss  the 
question,  whether  it  is  allowable  in  our  interpretation 


LECTURE  II.  41 

of  the  Bible,  to  depart  in  some  cases  from  the  princi- 
ple, just  mentioned.  But  if  it  be  allowable,  this  de- 
parture must  be  made  at  least  with  consistency ;  it 
must  not  be  made,  till  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible 
is  already  established,  for  on  that  ground  only  can  we 
defend  the  adoption  of  other  rules. 

Now  we  must  learn  to  understand  the  Bible,  be- 
fore we  can  judge  of  its  pretensions  to  divine  authori- 
ty. But  if,  while  we  are  ascertaining  the  justice  of 
these  pretensions,  we  apply  rules  of  interpretation, 
which,  if  applicable  at  all,  can  be  applicable  only, 
when  those  pretensions  are  confirmed,  we  are  contin- 
ually moving  in  a  circle,  and  never  find  an  end.  It  is 
not  sufficient,  that  a  proposition  be  true,  to  warrant  our 
arguing  from  the  truth  of  it :  we  must  not  only  know 
it  to  be  true,  but  we  must  be  able  to  prove  it  inde- 
pendently of  the  proposition,  to  which  we  apply  it.  If 
in  geometry  the  proposition,  that  the  square  of  the 
hypothenuse  equals  the  squares  of  the  sides,  would, 
though  indisputably  true,  be  thought  absurdly  applied 
to  demonstrate  the  properties  of  parallel  lines,  because 
these  properties  must  be  established  before  that  pro- 
position can  be  proved,  shall  we  argue  less  logically  in 
our  religious  inquiries,  shall  we  think  it  allowable, 
where  our  eternal  welfare  is  concerned,  to  proceed 
less  rigidly  in  our  researches,  than  in  cases  of  tempo- 
ral moment,  or  in  matters  of  mere  speculation  ?  If  it 
be  true  then  (what  no  one  will  deny),  that  internal 
evidence  is  necessary  to  establish  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Bible,  if  that  internal  evidence  is  nothing  more, 
than  the  application  of  its  contents  to  a  particular  ob- 
6 


43  LECTURE  II. 

ject,  and  this  application  requires,  that  those  contents- 
should  be  understood,  it  is  manifest,  that  we  must 
learn  to  interpret  tliem,  at  least  in  the  first  instance, 
by  the  rules,  which  are  applied  to  the  interpretation 
of  other  works.  Even  if  we  admit  that  every  word, 
as  well  as  every  thouglit,  was  inspired,  yet  as  the  ob- 
ject of  revelation  is  not  to  perplex  but  to  enlighten, 
we  must  still  conclude,  that  the  words,  which  are 
used  in  Scripture,  are  there  used  in  the  accepta- 
tion, which  was  common  in  the  intercourse  between 
man  and  man. 

When  by  the  means  above-mentioned  we  have 
acquired  due  information  in  respect  to  any  portion  of 
Scripture,  for  instance,  the  Five  books  of  Moses,  or 
the  Four  Gospels,  we  are  then  qualified,  if  not  to  in- 
vestigate for  ourselves,  at  least  to  study  the  investiga- 
tions, which  have  been  made  by  others,  in  respect  to 
the  authenticity  of  those  books,  that  is,  whether  they 
were  written  by  the  authors,  to  whom  they  are  ascrib- 
ed. This  is  the  plain  question,  which  we  must  ask 
before  we  go  further,  Did  such  a  person  write  such  a 
book,  or  did  he  not  ?  It  is  a  mere  historical  question, 
which  must  be  determined,  partly  by  external,  and 
partly  by  internal  evidence.  But  great  confusion  has 
taken  place  on  this  subject,  by  intermixing  matter, 
with  which  it  has  no  necessary  connexion.  When  the 
fact,  that  the  first  of  our  four  Gospels,  for  instance, 
was  written  by  St.  Matthew,  has  been  once  establish- 
ed by  historical  and  critical  arguments,  (which  histor- 
ical and  critical  arguments  must  be  applied  precisely 
*'AS  we  would  apply  them  to  a  profane  author)  it  will 


LECTURE  II.  4S 

follow  of  itself,  that  the  Gospel  was  inspired,  when  we 
come  to  the  subject  of  inspiration,  and  shew,  that  the 
author,  whose  work  we  have  already  proved  it  to  be, 
had  received  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  if 
we  investigate  the  two  subjects  at  the  same  time,  if 
we  intermix  the  question  of  inspiration  with  the  ques- 
tion of  authenticity,  we  shall  probably  establish  nei- 
ther. In  fact,  the  two  questions  are  so  distinct,  that  we 
cannot  even  begin  with  the  one,  till  we  have  ended 
w  ith  the  other.  Before  the  point  has  been  ascertain- 
ed, whether  this  Gospel  was  written  by  St.  Matthew, 
or  by  an  impostor  in  his  name,  there  is  no  g^round 
even  for  asking,  whether  it  was  written  by  inspiration; 
for  in  the  latter  case  it  would  not  be  Scripture.  It  is 
obvious  therefore,  that  in  our  inquiries  into  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  sacred  writings,  the  subject  of  inspi- 
ration must  be  left  for  future  discussion. 

When  we  have  established  the  authenticity  of  the 
sacred  writings,  that  is,  when  we  have  established  the 
historical  fact,  that  they  were  written  by  the  authors, 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  the  next  point  to  be  as- 
certained is,  the  credit  due  to  their  accounts.  And 
here  we  must  be  careful  to  guard  against  a  petitm 
principiij  to  which  very  many  writers  on  this  subject 
have  exposed  themselves.  If  we  assert,  that  the 
narratives,  for  instance,  in  the  New  Testament  are 
therefore  entitled  to  credit,  because  the  writers  were 
prevented  by  divine  assistance  from  falling  into  mate- 
rial  error,  we  assert  indeed  what  is  true  ;  but  it  is  a 
truth,  which  we  can  no  more  apply  in  the  present 
stage  of  our  inquiry,  than  we  can  apply  the  last  propo*' 


44  LECTURE  II. 

sition  of  a  book  of  Euclid  to  the  denionstiatioii  of  the 
first.  For  what  other  arguments  can  we  produce,  to 
shew  that  those  writers  had  such  assistance,  than  ar- 
guments deduced  from  die  writings  themselves  ? 
And  does  not  this  argumentation  imply,  diat  the  truth 
of  those  writings  is  already  established  ?  It  must  be 
established  therefore  without  an  appeal  to  inspiration, 
or  it  cannot  be  established  at  all.  for  as  long  as  this 
truth  remains  unestablished,  so  long  must  inspiration 
remain  unproved.  The  credibility  therefore  of  the 
sacred  writers  must  be  estimated,  in  the  first  instance, 
as  we  would  estimate  the  credibility  of  other  writers. 
We  must  build  on  their  testimony  as  human  evi- 
dence, before  we  can  obtain  the  privilege  of  appealing 
to  them  as  divine. 

The  branches  of  Theology,  which  have  been  hith- 
erto described,  are  those,  which  require  the  same  kind 
of  treatment,  as  we  apply  to  the  investigation  of  an- 
cient writings  in  general.  We  now  come  to  a  more 
important  part  of  our  duty,  on  which  we  shall  be  qual- 
ified to  enter,  (and  then  only,)  when  we  have  obtained 
a  competent  knowledge  of  the  preceding  branches. 
WTien  the  authenticity  and  credibility  of  the  Bible 
have  been  established  in  the  manner,  and  by  the  steps 
above-mentioned,  we  are  then  enabled  to  collect  evi- 
dence for  the  divine  origin  of  our  religion.  When 
a  prophecy,  so  descriptive  of  a  particular  event  as  to 
warrant  the  belief,  that  this  event  was  meant  to  be 
described,  when  such  a  prophecy  is  recorded  in  a 
book,  which  we  have  proved  to  have  been  written 
some  centuries  before  the  event,  we  have  the  strong- 


LECTURE  II.  AH 

est  evidence,  that  the  person,  who  deUvered  the  proph- 
ecy, was  endowed  with  more  than  human  wisdom. 
Or,  if  a  miracle,  ascribed  to  a  particular  person,  is 
recorded  in  a  book,  which  we  have  already  proved  to 
be  worthy  of  credit,  we  have  again  the  strongest  evi- 
dence, that  the  person,  to  whom  the  miracle  is  as- 
cribed, was  endowed  with  more  than  human  power. 
If  then  such  persons  deliver  doctrines,  which  from 
their  internal  excellence  are  worthy  of  being  commu- 
nicated from  God  to  m-,n,  we  may  argue  to  the  reali- 
ty of  such  communications,  and  regard  the  proph- 
ecies and  miracles,  as  credentials  of  a  divine  com- 
mission. Thenceforward  we  may  view  the  Bible, 
as  a  work  containing  the  commands  of  God  :  thence- 
forward we  may  treat  it  as  the  fountain  of  religious 
l^ith. 

Such  are  the  steps,  by  which  we  must  gradually 
advance  toward  the  evidence  for  the  divine  origin  of 
our  religion. 

From  evidences  we  might  proceed  immediately 
to  doctrines.  But  as  this  interval  is  the  proper  place 
for  examining  the  subject  of  inspiration,  we  must 
assign  this  place  to  it  in  our  plan  of  study.  The 
arguments,  which  are  used  for  divine  inspiration  are 
all  founded  on  the  previous  supposition  that  the  Bible 
is  true  :  for  we  appeal  to  the  contents  of  the  Bible  in 
proof  of  inspiration.  Consequently  those  arguments 
can  have  no  force  till  the  authenticity  and  credibility 
of  the  Bible  have  been  already  established.  Nor  is 
the  establishment  even  of  these  points  sufficient  for 
our  purpose.      We  must  likewise  have  established 


46  LECTURE  11. 

the  divine  origin  of  our  religion,  before  wc  can  prove 
inspiration.  For  nothing  but  either  divine  testimony, 
or  fulfilled  prophecy  can  confirm  it.  These  general 
observations  are  sufficient  to  shew  how  far  we  must 
have  advanced  in  our  study  of  Theology,  before  wc 
are  qualified  to  enter  upon  this  branch  of  it. 

The  next  branch  of  Theology  relates  to  Doctrines. 
When  we  have  learnt  to  interpret  the  Bible,  and  have 
gone  through  the  evidences  for  our  religion,  we  are 
qualified  to  study  its  doctrines.  Our  knowledge  of 
the  former  will  enable  us  to  judge,  whether  doctrines 
are  warranted  or  not  warranted  by  Scripture  :  and  if 
they  are,  our  knowledge  of  the  latter  will  enable  us  to 
perceive  the  force  of  their  oblig'ation,  and  convince  us, 
that  it  is  our  interest,  as  well  as  our  duty,  to  adopt 
them. 

As  the  creeds,  which  have  been  professed  in  dif- 
ferent ages,  and  by  Christians  of  different  denomina- 
tions, are  not  only  various,  but  sometimes  contradic- 
tory, yet  all  agree  in  claiming  the  Bible  for  their  sup- 
port, their  respective  claims  must  be  examined  with 
all  the  attention,  which  is  due  to  so  important  a  sub- 
j.ect.  But  as  those  claims  require,  each  of  them,  a 
separate  examination,  and  therefore  some  one  religious 
creed  must  be  the  first  object  of  consideration,  there 
cannot  be  a  doubt  in  :egard  to  the  question,  where  it 
is  our  duty  tg  begin.  When  we  have  obtained  a 
knowledge,  and  have  learnt  the  value,  of  our  own  sys- 
tem, we  may  undertake  to  compare  it  with  others,  and 
again  examine  those  points,  in  which  one  or  more  of 
them  shall  be  found  to  differ  from  it. 


LECTURE  II.  47 

• 

Lastly,  when  we  have  thus  acquired  a  knowledge 
both  of  the  doctrines  themselves,  and  of  the  founda- 
tions, on  which  they  are  built,  we  shall  find  it  as  use- 
ful, as  it  is  entertaining,  to  trace  the  progress  of  relig- 
ious opinion  through  the  different  ages  of  the  Christian 
world.  And,  as  this  progress  of  religious  opinion 
cannot  easily  be  traced,  nor  satisfactorily  explained, 
without  knowing  likewise  the  external  causes,  which 
operated  in  promoting  the  adoption  of  them,  we  must 
sum  up  our  theological  studies  with  the  study  of  ec- 
clesiastical history. 

Let  us  now  recapitulate  the  branches  of  Theology, 
thus  formed  and  arranged  according  to  the  principle 
laid  down  at  the  beginning  of  the  Lecture. 

1.  The  first  branch  relates  to  the  Criticism  of  the 

Bible. 

2.  The  second  to  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible. 

3.  The  third  to  the  Authenticity  and  Credibility  of 

the  Bible. 

4.  The  fourth  to  the  Divine  Authority  of  the  Bible, 

or  the  Evidences*  for  the  Divine  Origin  of  the 
religions  recorded  in  it. 

5.  The  fifth  branch  relates  to  the  Inspiration  of  the 

Bible. 

6.  The  sixth  to  the  Doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which 

branch  is  subdivided  into 
[a)  Doctrines  deduced  by  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. 
{b)  Doctrines  deduced  by  other  Churches. 

7.  The  seventh  and  last  branch  relates  to  Ecclesiasti- 

cal Historv. 


4S  LECTURE  11. 

Having  thus  given  a  general  description  of  the 
several  branches  of  Theology,  and  having  arranged 
them  in  such  a  manner,  that  a  knowledge  of  the  one 
may  lead  to  a  knowledge  of  the  other,  I  shall  proceed 
in  the  next  and  following  Lectures  to  give  a  more 
minute  description  of  them,  as  they  successively  come 
under  particular  review. 


LECTURE  IIL 


The  principle  on  which  the  proposed  arrange- 
ment was  made,  and  the  reasons  for  the  position  of 
each  branch,  were  so  fully  detailed  in  the  preceding 
Lecture,  that  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  give  any  fur- 
ther explanation.  I  will  only  therefore  observe  in 
general  terms,  that  they  are  placed  in  such  a  manner 
as  gradually  to  lead  toward  the  establishment,  the  firm 
establishment,  of  Christianity. 

But  in  order  to  obtain  both  a  firm  conviction,  and 
a  clear  perception  of  the  Christian  doctrines,  we  must 
be  content  to  travel  through  the  paths  of  Theology, 
without  departing  from  the  road,  which  lies  before  us. 
We  must  not  imagine,  that  any  particular  branch  may 
be  selected  at  pleasure,  as  it  may  happen  to  excite  in 
us  a  greater  degree  either  of  interest  or  of  curiosity  ; 
for  if  this  were  allowable,  where  would  be  the  utility 
of  theological  order  ?  We  must  study  the  Criticism 
of  the  Bible,  before  we  can  be  qualified,  at  least  he- 
fore  we  can  be  well  qualified,  to  study  the  Interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible.  And  we  must  obtain  a  knowledge 
of  the  Bible,  before  we  can  even  judge  of  the  argU' 
7 


50  LECTURE  III. 

ments,  which  are  alleged  for  its  Authenticity  and 
Credibility.  But  till  these  points  have  been  estal^lish- 
ed,  we  have  established  nothing  in  a  religious  view  : 
and  consequently  if  we  undertake  the  latter  branches 
of  Theology,  before  we  have  gone  through  the  former, 
we  shall  not  only  build  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
but  Christianity  itself  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  In 
short,  whoever  undertakes  to  study  Theology  without 
preparing  himself  for  the  latter  i^ranches  by  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  former,  undertakes  as  desperate  a  task,  as 
a  student  in  mathematics,  Avho  should  venture  upon 
Newton's  Principia,  before  he  had  learnt/ eit-her  the 
properties  of  Conic  Sections,  or  even  the  Elements  of 
Plain  Geometry. 

I  am  well  aware,  that  a  numerous  sect  of  Chris- 
tians in  this  country  have  a  much  more  easy  and  ex- 
peditious mode  of  studying  Divinity.  No  literary 
apparatus  is  there  necessary,  either  for  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible,  the  establishment  of  its  truth,  or  the 
elucidation  of  its  doctrines.  Inward  sensation  sup- 
plies the  place  of  outward  argument ;  divine  commu- 
nication supersedes  theological  learning.  But  as  I 
am  not  able  to  teach  Divinity  in  any  other  way  than 
I  have  been  able  to  learn  it,  as  my  own  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity  is  the  result,  not  of  sudden 
impulse,  but  of  long  and  laborious  investigation,  as  I 
have  no  other  knowledge  of  its  doctrines,  than  that 
which  is  founded  on  the  Bible,  interpreted  by  human 
learning,  my  hearers  must  be  satisfied,  if  they  contin- 
ue their  attendance,  to  follow  with  patience  and  per- 
severance in  all  the  portions  of  Theology,  through 
which  it  is  proposed  to  lead  them. 


LECTURE  III.  Si 

As  a  reason  for  recommending  so  laborious  a  pur- 
suit, which  perhaps  to  many  persons  will  appear  un- 
necessary, it  may  be  obsei'ved,  that  the  object  of  these 
Lectures  is  to  form  a  theologian,  who  shall  be  thor- 
oughly acquainted  with  his  ground  from  the  com- 
mencement to  the  close  of  his  theological  career,  who, 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  shall  never  refer  to 
a  fact  in  the  criticism  of  the  Bible,  with  which  he  is 
not  previously  acquainted,  nor  be  compelled,  when  he 
is  searching  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  to  adopt  a  rule 
of  interpretation,  without  perceiving  the  foundation, 
on  which  it  rests. 

To  those  especially,  who  seek  for  conviction  in 
certain  inward  feelings,  which  the  warmth  of  their 
imaginations  represents  to  them  as  divine,  I  would 
reconuuend  the  serious  consideration  of  this  impor- 
tant fact,  that  the  foundation,  which  they  lay  for  the 
Bible,  is  no  other,  than  what  the  Mahometan  is  accus- 
tomed to  lay  for  the  Koran.  If  you  ask  a  Mahome- 
tan, why  he  ascribes  divine  authority  to  the  Koran, 
his  answer  is,  Because,  when  I  read  it,  sensations  are 
excited,  which  could  not  have  been  produced  by  any 
work,  that  came  not  from  God.  But  do  we  therefore 
give  credit  to  the  Mahometan  for  this  appeal  ?  Do 
we  not  immediately  perceive,  when  the  Mahometan 
thus  argues  from  inward  sensation,  that  he  is  merely 
raising  a  phantom  of  his  own  imagination  ?  And 
ought  not  this  example,  when  we  hear  a  similar  ap- 
peal from  a  Christian  teacher,  to  make  us  at  least  dis- 
trustful, not  indeed  with  respect  to  Christianity  itself, 
but  with  respect  to  his  mode  of  proving  it  ?     He  may 


43  LECTURE  III. 

answer  indeed,  and  answer  with  truth,  that  his  sensa- 
tions are  produced  by  a  work,  which  is  really  divine, 
while  the  sensations  excited  in  the  Mahometan,  are 
produced  by  a  work,  which  is  only  thought  so.  But 
this  very  truth  will  involve  the  person,  who  thus  uses 
it,  in  a  glaring  absurdity.  In  the  first  place  he  ap- 
peals to  a  criterion,  which  puts  the  Bible  on  a  level 
with  the  Koran  :  and  then  to  obviate  this  objection, 
he  endeavours  to  shew  the  superiority  of  his  own  ap- 
peal, hy  presupposing  the  fact,  which  he  had  under- 
taken to /?roi'^.  Let  us  leave  then  to  the  enthusiast 
these  imaginary  demonstrations,  v/hile  we  are  seeking 
for  proofs,  which  will  bear  the  test  of  inquiry,  and  sat- 
isfy the  demands  of  reason.  Such  proofs  there  are. 
But  they  are  attainable  only  by  him,  who  will  resolve 
to  enter  on  those  paths  of  kno\A'ledge,  which  alone  can 
conduct  him  to  the  place,  where  Christianity  is  con- 
firmed. 

As  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible  is  the  first  object  of 
our  studv,  and  as  without  it  no  man  can  become  a 
sound  divine,  it  must  not  only  be  described  l^efore  all 
other  branches,  but  must  be  described  at  considerable 
length.  Nor  can  it  be  necessary  to  apologize  to  this 
audience  for  being  diffuse  on  such  a  subject.  If  the 
critical  inquiries  into  the  poems  of  Homer,  which 
have  been  lately  instituted  by  Wolf  and  Heyne,  are 
justly  read  with  avidity  by  every  real  scholar,  surely 
the  same  scholar,  when  he  transfers  his  attention  to 
the  Bible,  cannot  listen  with  indifference  to  a  recital 
of  whatever  has  been  attempted  to  place  its  criticism 
on  a  firm  foundation. 


LECTURE  III.  53 

But  before  we  proceed  to  this  recital,  it  is  neces- 
sary, according  to  the  plan  prescribed  in  the  first  Lec- 
ture, to  give  some  account  of  those  very  useful  works, 
which  are  known  by  the  name  of  Introductions  to  the 
Bible.  These  Introductions  will  furnish  the  theolog- 
ical student  with  such  general  information  on  the  sub- 
jects of  criticism  and  interpretation,  as  will  be  highly 
useful  to  him,  before  he  undertakes  these  branches  in 
detail.  The  works,  which  relate  to  special  objects  of 
criticism,  will  be  mentioned  hereafter,  in  their  proper 
places. 

Among  the  introductory  works,  which  we  are 
now  to  consider,  there  are  some,  which  have  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  languages  of  the  Sacred  Writings. 
Of  this  description  is  Hottinger's  Thesaurus  Philolo- 
gictis.  In  this  work  Hottinger,  who  was  Professor  at 
Zurich  in  Switzerland,  about  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  treats  of  the  Targums  or  Jewish  Para- 
phrases, of  the  Masora  or  Jewish  Criticism,  and  other 
branches  of  Jewish  literature,  with  the  view  of  illus- 
trating the  Hebrew  Bible.  Works  of  similar  tenden- 
cy are  the  Philologus  Hehrceus^  and  the  Phiblogus  He- 
brceo-mixtus  of  Leusden,  who  was  Professor  at  Utrecht 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Leus- 
den wrote  likewise  a  similar  introduction  to  the  Greek 
Testament,  entitled  Philologus  Hehnso-gracus, 

Other  introductions  to  the  Sacred  Writings  con- 
tain information  explanatory  of  their  contents,  without 
entering  so  particularly  into  the  language,  in  which 
they  were  written.      Of  this  description  is  the  Opus 
Analyticum  of  Van  Til,  who  was  Professor  at  Ley- 


\ 


o4  LECTURE  111. 

den,  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century.  This  work, 
which  is  the  substance  of  Van  Til's  lectures,  and  to 
which  Heidegger's  Enchiridion  Blblicum  served  as  a 
syllabus,  contains  an  introduction  to  the  several  books, 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  relative  to  the 
authors  of  them,  to  the  times  when,  and  the  places 
where  tliey  were  written,  and  to  their  general  con- 
tents. 

Of  greater  value  are  the  Introductions  of  Carpzo- 
vius  and  Pritius,  the  one  to  the  Old,  the  other  to  the 
New  Testament.  Carpzovius,  or,  as  he  was  called 
in  his  own  country,  Carpzov,  was  Professor  at  Leip- 
zig in  the  former  part  of  the  last  century,  and  pub- 
lished, in  the  year  1721,  the  first  edition  of  his  Intro- 
ductio  ad  Libras  Canonicos  Bibliorum  Vcteris  Testa- 
menti,,  which  was  reprinted  in  1731,  and  again  in  1741. 
Carpzov  was  a  man  of  profound  erudition,  and  inde- 
fatigable industry.  His  work  contains  the  principal 
materials,  which  have  been  afforded  by  his  predeces- 
sors, perspicuously  arranged,  and  augmented  by  his 
own  valuable  observations.  It  is  also  partly  employ- 
ed in  the  confutation  of  Hobbes,  Spinoza,  Toland, 

and    other   antiscripturists. The   service,    which 

Carpzov  rendered  to  the  Old  Testament,  was  render- 
ed by  Pritius  to  the  New  Testament,  who  in  1704  pub- 
lisiied  at  Leipzig,  his  Introductio  ad  Lectionem  A^ovi 
Testamenti^  which  went  through  several  editions  with 
notes  and  additions  by  Kapp  and  Hofmann.  Hof- 
niann's  edition  was  printed  at  Leipzig  in  1737,  and  re- 
printed in  1764.  Its  improvements  on  the  original 
edition  are  so  considerable,  that  whoever  purchases 


LECTURE  III.  33 

the  Introduction  of  Pritius  (and  it  deserves  to  be  pur- 
chased by  every  student  in  Divinity)  must  be  careful 
in  regard  to  the  date  of  the  title-page. 

With  respect  to  French  writers  of  Introductions 
to  the  Bible,  we  may  mention  in  the  first  place  Du  0 
Pin's  Preliminary  Dissertation,  or  Prolegomena  to  ' 
the  Bible,  which  w^s  prefixed  to  his  work,  called 
The  Library  of  Ecclesiastical  Authors,  and  was  re- 
printed both  at  Paris  and  at  Amsterdam  in  1701,  with 
considerable  additions,  in  two  quarto  volumes.  It 
explains  various  subjects  relative  both  to  the  Old  and 
to  the  New  Testament ;  and  is  a  very  useful  work,  not- 
withstanding the  severity,  with  which  it  was  treated 
by  Richard  Simon. 

The  Apparatus  Biblicus  written  by  Lamy,  a  priest       ''  ^ 
of   the    Oratory,   published   first   in   Latin,   then  in 
French,  and  translated  into  English  in  1723,  contains 
likewise  much  useful  introductory  information,  par- 
ticularly in  respect  to  Jewish  Antiquities. 

More  extensive  and  more  profound  are  Calmet's 
Dissertations,  in  the  form  of  Prolegomena  to  the  Sa- 
cred Writings.  Cahnet,  a  very  learned  Benedictine 
at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  first  published 
these  dissertations  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Bible, 
where  they  were  severally  prefixed  to  the  books,  to 
which  they  were  intended  as  introductions.  They 
were  afterwards  collected  into  one  work  by  Calmet 
himself,  and  published  with  considerable  additions,  in 
three  quarto  volumes,  at  Paris  in  1720.  This  Vv^ork, 
I  believe,  has  likewise  been  translated  into  English : 
but  as  I  have  never  seen  the  translation,  I  can  give  no 
account  of  it. 


56  LECTURE  III. 

L'Enfant,  a  French  Clergyman  of  the  Reformed 
Church,  who,  in  conjunction  with  Beausobre,  trans- 
lated the  New  Testament  into  French,  which  was  first 
published  at  Amsterdam  in  1718,  wrote  a  Preface  to 
the  translation,  which  makes  a  good  historical  intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament.  Of  this  Preface 
there  has  been  published  an.  English  translation, 
which  some  3'ears  ago  was  reprinted  at  Cambridge. 

Nor  have  our  own  countiymen,  especially  within 
the  last  sixty  years,  been  deficient  in  writing  Intro- 
ductions to  the  Bible.  One  of  our  earliest  publica- 
tions of  this  kind  is  Collier's  Sacred  Interpreter.  The 
author  of  this  work,  who  must  be  distinguished  from 
the  author  of  the  Ecclesiastical  History,  lived  in  the 
former  part  of  the  last  century.  It  not  only  went 
through  several  editions  in  England,  but  in  1750  was 
translated  into  German.  It  is  printed  in  two  octavo 
volumes,  and  relates  both  to  the  Old  and  to  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  calculated  for  readers  in  general, 
and  is  a  good  popular  preparation  for  the  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  The  last  edition  was  printed  in 
1796. 

Lardner's  History  of  the  Apostles  and  Evange- 
lists, which  was  first  printed  in  three  volumes  in  1756 
and  1757,  but  makes  the  sixth  volume  of  Kippis's 
edition  of  Lardner's  works,  is  an  admirable  Introduc- 
tion to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  storehouse  of  lit- 
erary information  collected  with  equal  industry  and 
fidelity. 

In  1761  the  first  edition  of  Michaelis's  Introduc- 
tion, which  had  been  published  in  Germany  in  1750, 


LECTURE  III.  ST 

was  translated  into  English :  and  three  years  after- 
wards Dr.  Owen  published  his  Observations  on  the 
Four  Gospels. — From  the  three  last  mentioned  works, 
Dr.  Percy,  the  present  Bishop  of  Dromore,  compiled 
that  very  useful  manual  called  A  Key  to  the  New 
Testament,  which  has  gone  through  many  editions, 
and  is  very  properly  purchased  by  most  candidates 
for  Holy  Orders. 

In  imitation  of  this  Key  to  the  New  Testament, 
as  the  author  himself  says  in  his  Preface,  Mr.  (now 
Dr.)  Gray,  formerly  of  St.  Mary  Hall  in  Oxford,  pub- 
lished in  17S0,  A  Key  to  the  Old  Testament  and 
Apocrypha.  But  it  is  a  much  more  elaborate  perform- 
ance, than  the  Key  to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a 
compilation  from  a  great  variety  of  authors,  whose 
writings  are  generally  quoted  :  and,  as  the  materials 
are  metliodically  arranged,  it  furnishes  at  one  view 
what  must  otherwise  be  collected  from  many  writers. 
But  the  author  seems  to  have  been  unacquainted  with 
some  of  the  most  valuable  foreign  writers.  Not  even 
Carpzov  is  noticed,  whose  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  contains  a  treasure  of  biblical  learning, 
though  it  had  been  then  published  above  half  a  cen- 
tury, and  being  written  in  Latin  was  accessible  to  ev- 
ery scholar.  Nor  does  the  author  appear  to  have  been 
very  conversant  with  that  department  of  sacred  criti- 
cism, which  relates  to  the  manuscripts  of  the  Bible, 
or  he  would  not  have  supposed,  in  a  note  toward  the 
end  of  his  work,  that  the  celebrated  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus  was  at  present  in  any  other  place,  than  the 
British  Museum.  But,  notwithstanding  these  defects 
8 


58  LECTURE  III. 

it  is  Oil  tlie  whole  a  valuable  publication.  A  later 
edition,  I  believe,  was  published  in  ISO  J  :  but  I  can- 
not say  in  what  respects  it  differs  from  the  former. 

Dr.  Harwood's  Introduction  to  the  Study  and 
Knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,  of  which  the  first 
volume  was  published  in  1767,  the  second  in  1771,  I 
mention  at  present  more  on  account  of  its  title,  than 
on  account  of  its  contents.  Though  entitled  an  In- 
troduction to  the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  so  in  the 
sense,  in  which  the  abovementioned  works  are  Intro- 
ductions. It  does  not  describe  the  several  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  but  contains  a  collection  of  dis- 
sertations, relative  partly  to  the  characters  of  the  Sa- 
cred Writers,  partly  to  the  Jewish  history  and  cus- 
toms, and  to  such  parts  of  heathen  antiquities,  as  have 
reference  to  the  New  Testament.  But,  as  these  dis- 
sertations display  great  erudition,  and  contain  much 
information  illustrative  of  the  New  Testament,  Dr. 
Harwood's  Introduction  is  certainly  to  be  recommend- 
ed to  the  theological  student. 

The  last  English  publication,  containing  an  intro- 
duction to  the  Sacred  Writings,  is  the  present  Bishop 
of  Lincoln's  Elements  of  Christian  Theolog}%  the  first 
volume  of  which  contains  an  Introduction  both  to  the 
Old  and  to  the  New  Testament,  and  has  been  since 
published  for  that  purpose  in  a  separate  volume.  Hav- 
ing already  in  another  place  delivered  my  opinion  on 
this  work,  I  will  here  repeat  it  in  the  same  words : 
*'  It  is  the  result  of  extensive  reading ;  the  materials 
of  it  are  judiciously  arranged ;  the  reasonings  in  it 
are  clear  and  solid ;  it  is  well  adapted  to  the  purpose^ 


LECTURE  III.  5f 

for  which  it  was  intended,  as  a  manual  for  students  in 
Divinity,  and  it  may  be  read  with  advantage  by  the 
most  experienced  divine." 

I  now  come  to  a  class  of  introductory  writers, 
who  have  particularly  distinguished  themselves  by 
their  profound  critical  researches.  The  author,  who 
took  the  lead  in  this  branch  of  learning,  was  Richard 
Simon,  a  priest  of  the  congregation  of  the  Oratory  at 
Paris.  In  1678  he  published  his  Critical  History  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  reprinted  in  1685  with 
considerable  additions.  It  consists  of  three  parts,  the 
first  containing  a  Critical  History  of  the  Hebrew  Text, 
the  second  a  Critical  History  of  the  Translations,  the 
third  a  Critical  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament.  In  1684  he  published  his  Critical 
History  of  the  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
corresponds  to  the  first  part  of  the  former  work  :  and 
in  correspondence  with  the  second  and  third  parts  of 
that  work,  he  published,  in  1690,  his  Critical  History 
of  the  Versions  of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  1693 
his  Critical  History  of  the  principal  Commentators  on 
the  New  Testament.  Lastly,  in  1695  he  published 
his  New  Observations  on  the  Text  and  Versions  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  criticism  of  the  Bible  be- 
ing at  that  time  less  understood,  than  at  present,  the 
researches,  which  were  instituted  by  Simon,  soon  in- 
volved liini  in  controversy,  as  well  with  Protestant  as 
with  Catholic  writers,  particularly  with  the  latter,  to 
whom  he  gave  great  offence  by  the  preference  which 
he  shewed  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  of  the  Bi- 
ble above  that,  which  is  regarded  as  the  oracle  of  the 


6©  LECTURE  III. 

Church  of  Rome,  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Though  I 
would  not  be  answerable  for  every  opinion  advanced 
by  Simon,  I  may  venture  to  assert,  that  it  contains 
ver}'^  valuable  information  in  regard  to  the  criticism, 
both  of  the  Hebrew  Bil:)le,  and  of  the  Greek  Testa-^ . 
meat. 

The  same  critical  acumen,  which  Simon' display- 
ed in  France,  has  been  since  displayed  by  Michaelia 
and  Eichhorn  in  Germany  ;  by  the  iormer  in  his  In- 
troduction to  the  New,  by  the  latter  in  his  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament.  Both  of  these  Introduc- 
tions are  formed  on  the  same  plan  :  they  are  each  di- 
vided into  two  parts,  the  one  containing  a  critical  ap- 
paratus necessary  for  the  understandir>g  of  the  origin- 
al, the  other  an  introduction  to  every  single  book.  It 
is  that  critical  apparatus,  which  distinguishes  these 
Introductions  from  all  other  Introductions,  either  to 
the  Old,  or  to  the  New  Testament.  But  the  Intro- 
duction of  Michaclis  is  too  well  known  in  this  place, 
to  require  a  particular  descri[)tion  :  and  were  it  oth- 
erwise, the  translator,  whose  notes  are  closely  con- 
nected with  the  text  of  the  author,  is  not  qualified  to 
make  a  due  estimate  of  the  publication.*  Nor  can  it 
be  necessary  to  say  any  thing  more  at  present  of  Eich- 
horn's  Introduction,  which  has  never  been  translated, 

•  As  the  7S/-j«  edition  of  Michaelis's  Inti-ocjuction,  which  was  publish- 
ed in  Germany  in  1750,  and  translated  into  Eng-lisii  in  1761,  still  appears 
in  catalo^es  of  books,  it  is  necessary  to  warn  the  reader  of  the  material 
difference  between  that  edition,  and  thejourth  edition  published  in  1788, 
which  was  translated  by  the  Aut||pr  of  tliese  Lectures.  To  say  nothing 
of  the  notes  and  additions  by  the  translator,  ihe  fourth  edition  in  tlie  orijf- 
inal  consists  of  two  quartos,  the^r^tof  a  single  octavor, 


LECTURE  III.  61 

and  from  the  difficulties  both  of  the  language  and  of 
the  subjects,  cannot  be  understood  by  many  English 
readers. 

After  this  account  of  the  principal  Introductions, 
we  may  undertake  a  particular  examination  of  Sacred 
Criticism,  and  proceed,  agreeably  to  the  plan  prescib- 
ed  in  the  first  Lecture,  to  a  review  of  what  has  been 
done  in  different  ages,  with  respect  to  this  primary 
branch  of  Theology. 

It  will  appear  perhaps  to  those,  who  are  less  con- 
versant with  the  subject,  that  a  recital  of  this  kind 
should  rather  be  a  sequel,  than  a  preface,  to  the  study 
of  criticism.  Now  this  observation  would  certainly 
apply  to  science  properly  so  called  :  and  no  one  who 
was  not  a  mathematician,  for  instance,  sliould  under- 
take to  read  such  a  work,  as  Montucla's  History  of 
Mathematics.  But  the  principles  and  the  history  of 
sacred  criticism  bear  to  each  other  a  very  different  re- 
lation, from  that  of  the  principles  and  the  history  of 
mathematics.  In  the  latter,  a  knowledge  of  princi- 
ples is  necessary  to  understand  the  history :  in  the 
former,  the  history  is  necessary  to  understand  the 
principles.  Sacred  criticism  has  for  its  object  an  ag- 
gregate of  literary  labours,  undertaken  at  different  pe- 
riods, and  for  different  purposes;  and  its  principles 
are  general  conclusions  deduced  from  those  literar}^  la- 
bours. Consequently,  though  we  may  comprehend 
the  laws  of  criticism  without  a  previous  knowledge 
of  what  has  been  done  in  this  branch  of  Theology,  yet 
without  this  previous  knowledge  we  shall  never  com- 
prehend the  reason  or  foundation  of  those  laws.     On 


62  LECTURE  III. 

the  other  hand,  a  knowledge  of  diose  laws  is  not  nec- 
essary for  the  understanding  of  the  plain  facts,  which 
a  history  of  criticism  has  to  record.  A  review  there- 
fore of  the  progress,  which  has  been  made  in  this 
branch  of  Theology,  tvvn  from  the  earliest  to  the 
present  ag-e,  may  be  given  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  be 
intelligible  to  every  man  of  liberal  education.  And 
the  advantages  arising  from  such  a  review  are  obvi- 
ous, not  only  because  it  will  enable  us  to  judge  of  the 
rules,  which  modern  critics  have  adopted,  but  because 
we  shall  thus  become  acquainted  with  the  several 
stages,  through  which  the  criticism  of  the  Bible  has 
passed,  and  with  the  means,  by  which  it  has  acquired 
its  present  form.  We  shall  perceive  how  the  general 
stock  of  kr.owledge  has  gradually  increased,  to  whom 
we  are  indebted  for  each  augmentation,  with  what  ra- 
pidity or  slowness  these  augmentations  accumulated, 
what  causes  accelerated  or  retai'ded,  what  ii^fluence 
gave  to  each  of  them  its  peculiar  direction.  That 
these  things  are  worthy  of  notice,  will  surely  be  allow- 
ed by  all  men,  to  whom  literature  is  an  object  of  re- 
gard.    Let  us  proceed  then  to  the  intended  review. 

The  first  writer,  who  appears  to  have  paid  atten- 
tion to  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible,  is  the  celebrated 
Origen,  who  was  born  in  Egypt  toward  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  and  died  at  Tyre  soon  after  the  mid- 
dle of  the  third  century.  His  criticism  was  directed 
to  the  emendation  of  the  Septuagint,  a  Greek  transla- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  made  at  Alexandria  in  the 
time  of  the  Ptolemies,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Greek 
Jews,  who  were  established  there,  and  which  derived 


LECTURE  III.  6% 

its  name  from  the  now-exploded  story  of  seventy  or 
seventy-two  translators  being  employed  for  that  pur- 
pose. Oi'igen  himself  relates  in  his  Commentary  on 
St.  Matthew,  that  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Septua- 
gint,  which  was  become  the  Bible  of  the  Greek  Chris- 
tians, such  alterations  had  been  made,  either  by  de- 
sign, or  through  the  cai'elessness  of  transcribers,  as  to 
make  the  manuscripts  materially  differ  from  each  oth- 
er, and  of  course,  even  if  no  other  cause  prevailed, 
from  the  Hebrew  Bible,  Of  this  difference  the  Jews 
availed  themselves  in  their  controversies  with  the 
Christians,  who,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  were  ig- 
norant of  Hebrew,  while  the  Jews,  especially  since  the 
establishment  of  the  school  at  Tiberias  in  Galilee,  had 
begun  again  to  cultivate  the  original  language  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  knowledge  enabled  them,  in 
their  controversies  with  the  Christians,  to  detect  the 
differences  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  Bi- 
ble :  and,  as  it  frequently  happened,  that  the  passages 
quoted  by  the  Christians  against  the  Jews,  were  either 
not  contained  at  all  in  the  Hebrew,  or  contained  there 
in  a  different  shape,  the  arguments,  which  were  found- 
ed on  such  quotations,  fell  immediately  to  the  ground. 
It  was  sufficient  to  reply,  *'  the  words,  which  you 
quote,  are  not  in  the  original."  It  is  true,  that  an 
oiig'mal  may  be  corrupted  as  well  as  a  translation  : 
and  that  the  Jews  were  guilty  of  such  corruptions,  has 
been  asserted  both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times. 
But  when  we  consider  die  rules,  which  were  observ- 
ed by  the  Jews  in  transcribing  the  sacred  writings, 
rules  which  were  carried  to  an  accuracy  that  bordered 


64  LECTURE  III. 

on  superstition,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  no 
work  of  antiquity  has  descended  to  the  present  age  so 
free  from  alteration,  as  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Nor  does 
Origen  appear  to  have  suspected,  that  the  differences 
between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  arose  from  any- 
other  cause,  than  alterations  in  the  latter.      , 

He  made  therefore  the  Hebrew  text  the  basis  of 
those  corrections,  ^vhich  he  proposed  to  introduce  in 
the  Septuagint.  For  this  purpose  he  formed  a  kind 
of  Polyglot :  and,  as  this  was  not  only  a  work  of  im- 
mense labour,  but  has  served  as  a  model,  even  to  the 
signs  or  marks  of  criticism,  for  later  editors,  it  may 
not  be  improper  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  it. 

It  contained  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  di- 
vided into  columns,  like  our  modern  Polyglot  Bibles. 
The  first  column  was  occupied  by  the  Hebrew.  But, 
as  very  few  of  those  persons,  to  whose  immediate 
benefit  his  labours  were  directed,  were  acquainted 
even  with  the  letters  of  that  language,  he  added,  in  a 
second  column^  the  Hebrew  words  in  Greek  letters, 
that  his  readers  might  have  at  least  some  notion  of  the 
form  and  sound  of  the  Hebrew  words.  To  express 
their  meaning,  he  added,  in  a  third  column,  a  Greek 
translation  from  the  Hebrew,  which  had  been  lately 
made  by  a  Jew,  of  the  name  of  Aqulla,  and  which  ad- 
heres so  closely  to  the  original,  as  frequently  to  violate 
the  common  rules  of  Greek  construction.  The  fourth 
column  was  occupied  by  another  Greek  translation  of 
the  Hebrew  Biljle,  likewise  lately  made,  but  probably 
after  the  translation  of  Aquila.  The  author  of  this 
second  Greek  translation  was  Symmachus,  whose  ob- 


LECTURE  III.  65 

ject  was  to  give,  not  so  much  a  literal  translation  of 
the  Hebrew,  as  a  translation  expressive  of  the  sense, 
and  free  as  possible  from  Hebraisms. 

Having  thus  prepared  the  way  for  his  proposed 
emendation  of  the  Septuagint,,  Origen  placed  in  the 
fifth  column  the  amended  text  of  the  Septuagint ;  and 
in  the  sixth  column  another  Greek  translation,  which 
had  been  lately  made  by  Theodotion. 

In  this  revision  of  the  Septuagint,  the  first  part  of 
Origen's  labour  was  to  collate  it  throughout  with  the 
Hebrew  ;  and  wherever  he  found  any  word  or  words 
in  the  former,  to  which  there  was  nothing  correspond- 
ent in  the  latter,  such  word  or  words  he  did  not  ex- 
punge from  the  Septuagint,  but  he  inclosed  them 
within  certain  marks  expressive  of  their  absence  from 
the  Hebrew,  namely  with  an  obelus,  or  mark  of  minus 
prefixed,  and  a  crotchet  at  the  end  to  express  how  far 
the  obelus  or  mark  of  minus  was  meant  to  extend. 
On  the  other  hand,  where  the  Hebrew  had  any  word 
or  words,  to  which  there  was  nothing  correspondent 
in  the  Septuagint,  there  he  inserted  such  word  or 
words,  as  were  necessary  to  supply  the  deficiency. 
And,  that  the  reader  might  always  kno.v  where  such 
insertions  were  made,  he  prefixed  to  them  an  aster- 
isk, or  mark  of  plus^  again  denoting  by  a  crotchet 
at  the  end,  what  words  the  asterisk  was  meant  to 
include.  And,  as  the  version  of  Theodotion  held  a 
middle  rank  between  the  closeness  of  Aquila  and  the 
freedom  of  Symmachus,  the  additions  in  question 
were  chiefly  made  in  the  words  which  were  used  by 
Theodotion.  For  this  preference  there  was  also 
9 


«e  LECTURE  III. 

another  reason,  namely,  that  the  style  of  Theoc'  -^^ 
tion  more  nearly  resembled  the  style  of  the  Sept .  >' 
gint,  than  eitlier  of  the  other  translations,  and  there- 
fore was  better  adapted  to  the  purpose,  to  which 
Origen  applied  it.  Hence  also  the  translation  of 
Theodotion  very  properly  occupied  the  column  ad- 
jacent to  the  corrected  version  of  the  Septuagint, 
In  some  instances,  either  where  Theodotion's  trans- 
lation was  defective,  or  for  other  reasons  at  present 
unknown,  Origen  used  the  words  of  Aquila  or  Sym- 
machus.  But  in  all  cases  he  expressed  by  the  in- 
itials A,  0,  2,  the  translations  from  which  he  cop- 
ied. These  were  the  sources,  from  which  Origen 
drew  in  every  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  in 
some  books  he  used  two  other  Greek  translations, 
of  which  the  authors  are  unknown :  and  in  certain 
passages  even  a  seventh  Greek  version,  of  which 
the  author  is  likewise  unknown. 

The  name,  which  is  commonly  given  to  this  work 
of  Origen,  is  Biblia  Hexapla,  or  Bible  in  six  columns, 
which  it  contained  throughout,  namely,  the  Hebrew^ 
the  Hebrew  in  Greek  characters,  the  version  of  Aqui- 
la, the  version  of  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint  version, 
and  that  of  Theodotion.  In  those  books,  which  con- 
tained likewise  two  anonymous  versions,  and  filled 
therefore  eight  columns,  it  was  called  Bibha  Octapla  ; 
and  in  the  passages,  where  the  third  anonymous  ver- 
sion occupied  a  ninth  column,  it  received  the  name  of 
Enneapla.  On  the  other  hand,  as  out  of  the  six  col- 
umns, which  went  through  the  whole  work,  only  four 
were  occupied  with  Greek  translations,  the  same  work* 


LECTURE  III.  67 

which  most  writers  call  Hexapla,  has  by  others  been 
denominated  Tetrapla.  They  are  only  different  names 
of  the  same  work,  viewed  in  different  lights,  though 
some  authors  have  fallen  into  the  mistake  of  supposing, 
from  the  difference  in  the  names,  that  they  denoted 
different  works. 

The  labour,  which  v/as  necessary  for  a  work  of 
such  magnitude,  can  be  estimated  only  by  those,  who 
have  been  engaged  in  similar  undertakings.  Eight  and 
twenty  years  are  said  to  have  been  employed  in  mak- 
ing preparations  for  it,  independently  of  the  time, 
which  was  employed  in  the  writing  of  it.  It  was  be- 
gun at  Ccesarea,  and  probably  finished  at  Tyre.  The 
text  of  the  Septuagint,  as  settled  by  Origen,  is  called 
the  Hexapiarian  text,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  text 
of  the  Septuagint,  as  it  existed  before  the  time  of  Or- 
igen, which  is  therefore  called  the  Ante-hexaplaria*. 

On  the  value  of  the  Hexapla  modem  critics  are 
divided ;  and  it  has  been  considered  by  some  very 
recent  writers,  rather  as  a  mechanical,  than  as  a  critical 
undertaking.  It  is  true,  that  great  as  the  labour  was, 
much  was  still  wanting  to  make  it  a  perfect  work.  It 
does  not  appear,  that  Origen  at  all  collated  manuscripts 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible  :  and,  though  he  compared  dif- 
ferent manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint,  without  which 
he  could  not  have  known  the  variations,  of  which  he 
speaks,  it  does  not  appear,  that  he  applied  those  colla- 
tions to  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  text.  A  com- 
parison between  his  own  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
and  his  own  copy  of  the  Septuagint  seems  alone  to 
have  determined  the  places,  in  which  he  deemed  it 


68  LECTURE  III. 

necessary  to  introduce  corrections.  It  was  his  design, 
to  render  tlie  Bible  of  the  Christians  in  all  respects 
the  same  with  the  Bible  of  the  Jews,  that  in  future 
controversies  there  might  be  a  common  standard,  to 
which  both  parties  might  appeal.  And  if  in  the  exe- 
cution of  this  work,  the  rules,  which  modern  critics 
have  learnt  from  longer  experience,  are  not  discerni- 
ble, it  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  the  first  ef- 
fort, which  was  ever  made  to  amend  a  corrupted  text, 
either  of  the  Old  or  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  work,  in  its  entire  state,  has  long  ceased  to 
exist ;  and  we  are  indebted,  for  our  knowledge  of  it, 
to  Eusebius  and  Jerom,  both  of  whom  had  seen  it  in 
>  the  library  of  Caesarea,  whither  the  original  itself  was 
removed  from  Tyre,  where  Origen  died,  by  Pamphi- 
lus,  the  founder  of  the  Cesarean  library.  But  as  the 
magnitude  of  the  work  was  such,  that  it  could  not  be 
transcribed  without  an  heavy  expense,  no  copy,  as  far 
as  we  know,  was  ever  taken  of  the  whole  :  and  the 
original  perished  in  the  flames,  which  consumed  the 
library  of  Cassarea  on  the  irruption  of  the  Saracens. 

But  that  column  of  the  Hexapla,  which  contained 
the  corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint,  with  its  critical 
marks,  was  transcribed  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus 
with  occasional  extracts  from  the  other  versions.     If 
f^s^h.^  we  had  this  column  entire,  it  might  make  some  repar- 
L,     ^  "'  ation  for  the  loss  of  the  rest :    but  even  this  column 

™  has  descended  to  us  only  in  fragments,  which  have 

been  collected  by  the  industry  of  the  learned,  particu- 
larly of  Montfaucon,  the  author  of  the  Palasographia 
Graeca,  who  published  them  at  Paris,  in  1714,  in  two 


LECTURE  III.      /'  69 

folio  volumes,  by  the  title  Hexaploram  Origenis  qua 
supersunt. 

Such  is  the  history  of  one  of  the  most  celebrated 
among  the  literary  undertakings  of  antiquity.  In  the 
next  Lecture,  this  review  of  sacred  criticism,  as  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  early  and  the  middle  ages,  will  be  con- 
tinued and  concluded. 


LECTUHE  IV. 


In  the  preceding  Lecture  was  given  some  ac- 
count of  the  labours  of  Origen  to  amend  the  corrupt- 
ed text  of  the  Septuagint  version.  At  the  end  of  the 
third,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  sim- 
ilar, though  less  laborious  tasks,  being  founded  pro- 
bably on  the  prior  labours  of  Origen,  were  undertak- 
en by  Lucian,  a  Presbyter  of  Antioch,  and  by  Hesy- 
chius,  an  Eg}ptian  Bishop.  Their  revisions,  or,  as 
we  should  say  of  printed  books,  their  editions  of  the 
Septuagint,  were  held  in  such  high  estimation,  that 
the  edition  of  Hesy chins  was  generally  adopted  by  the 
churches  of  Egypt,  and  that  of  Lucian  was  command- 
ed by  Constantine  tlie  Great  to  be  read  in  all  the 
churches  from  Antioch  to  Constantinople. 

Nor  was  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Original 
neglected  in  those  ages.  Tiberias  in  Galilee  was  then 
the  seat  of  Jewish  learning  :  it  was  the  residence  of 
the  best  Hebrew  scholars,  the  repository  of  the  best 
Hebrew  manuscripts.  The  two  great  works  of  Jew- 
ish literature  are  the  Talmud,  and  the  iMasora.  The 
commencement  of  the  Talmud  may  be  dated  from 
the  third  century  :    but,  as  it  chiefly  relates  to  doc- 


LECTURE  IV.  71 

Irines,  a  description  of  it  would  be  foreign  to  the  pres- 
ent Lecture.  The  materials  of  Jewish  criticism  are 
contained  in  the  Masora,  which  received  its  title  from 
the  mode  of  forming  it,  the  primary  parts  of  it  being 
a  collection  of  literary  notices,  which  had  been  pre- 
served by  tradition,  not  indeed  from  the  time  of  Mo- 
ses, as  some  of  the  Jews  pretend,  nor  even  from  the 
time  of  Ezra,  as  others  assert,  but  probably  during 
several  centuries  before  they  were  committed  to  writ- 
ing, or  rather  before  they  were  collected  into  one  gen- 
eral mass.  This  collection  was  formed  at  Tiberias. 
In  what  century  it  was  begun  is  not  positively  known, 
but  certainly  not  sooner  than  the  fourth,  and  probably 
not  sooner  than  the  fifth  century.  It  was  considered 
in  the  light  of  a  common-place  book,  to  which  new 
materials  were  continually  added,  till  at  length  it  be- 
came as  large  as  the  Bible  itself.  The  subjects,  of 
which  it  treated,  were,  the  great  and  small  divisions 
of  the  Hebrew  text,  the  words  with  various  readings, 
the  letters,  the  vowel  points,  and  accents.  It  is  true, 
that  the  Masora,  in  addition  to  the  materials,  which  it 
afforded  for  Hebrew  criticism,  contained  such  fanci- 
ful and  absurd  remarks,  as  might  excite  a  prejudice 
against  the  whole.  But  we  must  not  therefore  reject 
the  good  with  the  bad  r  for  we  are  indebted  to  those 
learned  Jews,  who  began  and  continued  the  Masora, 
for  the  accuracy,  with  which  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  have  descended  to  the  present  day  ;  aa 
obligation,  which  should  never  be  forgotten,  however 
great  in  other  respects  might  have  been  the  prejudices 
of  those,  to  whom  the  obligation  is  due. 


72  LECTURE  IV. 

The  history  of  sacred  criticism  now  conducts  uS 
into  Italy,  and  directs  our  attention  to  the  labours, 
which  Jerom  bestowed  on  the  Latin  version,  at  tlie 
end  of  the  fourth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. 

The  old  Latin  version  was  a  translation  from  the 
Greek,  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  in  the  New, 
the  Hebrew  not  being  understood,  except  in  rare  in- 
stances, by  the  members  of  the  Latin  Church.  It 
was  probably  made  in  the  early  part  of  the  second 
century :  at  least  it  was  quoted  by  TertuUian  before 
tlie  close  of  that  century.  But  before  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  the  alterations,  either  designed  or  ac- 
cidental, which  had  been  made  by  transcribers  of  the 
Latin  Bible,  were  become  as  numerous,  as  the  altera- 
tions in  the  Greek  Bible,  before  it  was  corrected  by 
Origen.  Indeed,  if  we  may  judge  from  the  strong 
expressions,  which  were  used  on  this  subject  by  Au- 
gustine, as  well  as  by  Jerom,  they  were  even  more 
numerous.  For  Augustine,  in  one  of  his  epistles  to 
Jerom,  calls  the  Latin  version  *'  tarn  varia  in  diversis 
codicibuSy  ut  vix  tolerari  possit ;"  and  Jerom  himself 
says,  "  cum  apud  Latinos  tot  sint  exemplaria^  quot  cod- 
ices., et  unusquisque,  pro  arbitrio  suo,  vel  addiderit  vel 
subtraxerit  quod  ei  visum  estJ'^ 

It  has  been  doubted,  whether  these  numerous  va- 
rieties arose  from  alterations  in  one  Latin  translation, 
or  whether  from  the  beginning  there  were  not  several 
Latin  translations.  A  discussion  of  this  question 
would  employ  more  time,  than  the  present  Lecture 
can  admit.     But  the  probable  result  of  such  a  discus- 


LECTURE  IV.  73 

sion  is,  that  before  the  time  of  Jerom  there  was  only 
one  Latin  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  but  jnore 
than  one  of  the  New^  whence  the  variations  in  the 
Latin  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  were  aug- 
mented by  the  additional  cause,  that  different  transla- 
tions were  sometimes  blended  in  the  same  copy.  But 
whatever  causes  might  have  operated  in  producing 
the  evil,  both  Augustine  and  Jerom  were  of  opinion, 
that  it  was  such,  as  required  an  immediate  remedy. 
And  as  no  one  was  so  well  qualified  for  a  critical  re- 
vision of  the  Latin  version  as  Jerom  himself,  he  was 
commissioned  to  undertake  the  task  by  Damasus, 
who  then  presided  over  the  See  of  Rome. 

In  correcting  the  Latin  version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, he  every  where  compared  the  translation  with 
the  original.  In  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  Latin 
version  was  there  only  the  translation  of  a  translation, 
he  compared  it  with  that  translation  ;  for  he  was  not 
commissioned  to  make  a  new  translation  from  the 
Hebrew,  but  to  correct  an  existing  translation,  which 
had  been  made  from  the  Greek.  But  he  determined 
to  select,  for  the  basis  of  his  emendations,  the  most 
accurate  text  of  the  Septuagint,  which  he  could  pro- 
cure ;  and  a  journey  to  Palestine  afforded  him  an  op- 
portunity of  consulting  the  Hexapla  preserved  in  the 
Library  of  Cassarea.  Though  his  revision  therefore 
of  the  Latin  version,  was  only  in  the  New  Testament 
a  revision  according  to  the  original,  yet  the  emenda- 
tions, which  he  made  in  the  Old  Testament,  were 
founded  on  a  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  which  Origen 
himself  had  corrected  from  the  Hebrew. 
10 


!r4  LECTURE  lY. 

But  whatever  defects,  or  whatever  excellencies 
might  have  existed  in  Jerom's  revision  of  the  Old 
Testament,  only  two  books  of  it,  the  Psalms  and  the 
book  of  Job,  have  descended  to  the  present  age.  In 
fact,  these  two  books,  with  the  Chronicles,  the  Prov- 
erbs, Ecclesiastes,  and  Solomon's  So.g,  were  the  on- 
ly parts  of  it,  which  were  ever  published.  Tne  man- 
uscripts, which  contained  his  revision  of  the  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  w^ere  entrusted  by  him 
to  some  person,  who  either  secreted  or  destroyed 
them.  Of  this  enemy  to  sacred  criticism,  who,  like 
certain  niodern  writers,  appears  to  have  preferred  a 
corrupted  to  a  genuine  text,  we  know  nothing  more 
than  what  Jerom  has  incidently  said  of  him  in  a  letter 
to  Augustine,  Pkraque  priori^  lahorisfraude  cujusdam 
amisitnus. 

The  loss  sustained  by  this  treachery  served  only 
to  stimulate  Jerom  to  fresh  exertions.  He  determin- 
ed no  longer  to  revise  an  old  translation  from  the 
Greek,  but  to  make  a  new  translation  from  the  He- 
brew, And  this  translation  from  the  Hebrew  he  fin- 
ished in  the  year  405. 

But  nearly  two  hundred  years  elapsed  before  this 
translation  received  the  sanction  of  the  church.  The 
contemporaries  of  Jerom  regarded  a  translation  from 
the  Hebrew,  as  a  dangerous  innovation :  for,  strange 
as  it  may  appear,  the  Septuagint  version  was  more 
respected  in  the  Latin  church,  than  the  Hebrew  orig- 
inal. At  that  time,  the  now-exploded  story  of  seven- 
ty-two interpreters,  all  translating  by  divine  inspira- 
tion, all  translating  independently,  yet  each  of  them 


LECTURE  IV.  75 

producing  the  same  translation,  was  firmly  believed, 
in  the  Latin  as  well  as  in  the  Greek  church.  Aad 
this  belief,  united  with  a  hatred  of  the  Jews,  and  an 
ignorance  of  Hebrew,  gave  to  the  Septuagint  version 
an  higher  rank,  than  to  the  original  itself.  Hence 
Augustine,  in  other  respects  a  friend  and  admirer  of 
Jerom,  who  concurred  with  him  in  opinion,  as  to  the 
state  of  the  old  version,  and  promoted  his  revisal  of  it 
from  the  Greeks  yet,  when  Jerom  undertook  his  trans- 
lation from  the  Hebrew^  inveighed  bitterly  against  it, 
as  if  Christianity  itself  were  affected  by  the  undertak- 
ing. At  length,  however,  Pope  Gregory'  the  Great, 
at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  gave  to  Jerom's  trans- 
lation the  sanction  of  Papal  authority.  From  that  pe- 
riod the  old  translation  from  the  Greek  was  gradually 
abandoned  for  Jerom's  translation  from  the  Hebrew, 
except  in  the  Psalms,  where  the  daily  repetition  of 
them  in  the  church  service,  and  their  being  adapted 
to  church  music,  made  it  difficult  to  introduce  altera- 
tions. 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  the 
Old  Testament.  In  the  New  Testament  the  Latin 
Vulgate  is  the  old  translation,  corrected  by  Jerom,  as 
already  related.  With  respect  to  the  Apocrypha,  as 
contained  in  the  Vulgate,  those  books  are  partly  in 
the  old  translation,  and  partly  in  a  translation  made  by 
Jerom  himself.  But  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  mod- 
em manuscripts,  or  printed  editions  of  the  Vulgate, 
contain  either  Jerom's  translations,  or  Jerom's  correc- 
tions in  the  same  state,  in  which  he  delivered  them. 
Latin  manuscripts  were  no  less  exposed  to  alteration 


76  LECTURE  TV. 

in  the  middle  ages,  than  tlicy  were  in  the  earl}-  ages 
of  Christianity.  Even  the  two  editions  of  the  Vul- 
gate, wliich  were  printed  at  Rome  in  1590  and  1592, 
both  of  them  under  Papal  authority,  and  both  of  them 
pronounced  authentic,  differ  materially  from  each 
other,  in  sense,  as  well  as  in  words.  But  the  modern 
state  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  a  subject,  which  is  foreign 
to  the  present  Lecture ;  though  the  fact,  which  has 
been  just  stated,  may  teach  us  this  useful  lesson,  that 
nothing  but  sacred  criticism  can  preserve  the  Bible  in 
its  pristine  purity. 

We  must  now  asjain  direct  our  attention  to  the 
East,  and  proceed  from  the  Latin  to  the  Syrian  church. 
For  this  church,  at  an  early  age  of  Christianity,  a 
translation  had  been  made,  of  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  of  the  New  Testament  from  the 
Greek.  And  this  translation,  which  is  called  the  Old 
Syriac  version,  soon  became,  and  still  remains,  the 
established  version  of  the  Syrian  church. 

But  there  was  another  Syriac  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  has  likewise  descended  to  the  pres- 
ent age :  and  it  is  this  Syriac  version  which  properly 
belongs  to  an  history  of  criticism,  because  it  was  af- 
terwards collated  with  Greek  manuscripts.  It  is  cal- 
led the  Philoxenian  version,  from  Philoxenus,  bishop 
of  Hierapolis,  under  whose  auspices  it  was  made  by 
Polycarp,  his  rural  bishop.  It  was  undertaken  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  from  motives  at  pres- 
ent unknown,  though  not  improbably  from  a  desire  of 
having  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
should  approach  to  the  original  even  more  closely, 


LECTURE  IV.  T7 

than  the  old  or  common  version.  For  the  Philoxe- 
nian  version  adheres  to  it,  even  with  servility.  And 
this  quality,  instead  of  forming  an  objection  to  it,  con- 
stitutes its  chief  value.  In  the  translation  of  works, 
which  are  designed  for  amusement,  something  more 
must  be  attempted,  than  mere  fidelity.  But  in  works 
intended  for  divine  instruction,  a  translation  cannot  be 
too  close.  And,  whenever  ancient  versions  are  appli- 
ed to  the  purposes  of  criticism,  even  a  servile  adher- 
ence to  their  original  augments  the  value  of  them. 
An  ancient  version,  except  in  places  where  that  ver- 
sion has  been  altered,  is  regarded  as  the  representative 
of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  manuscript,  from  which  that 
version  was  taken;  consequently,  the  more  closely 
such  manuscript  is  represented,  the  more  accurately 
shall  we  know  its  readings,  and  hence  the  more  pre- 
cisely shall  we  be  enabled  to  judge,  when  the  authen- 
ticity of  readings  is  disputed. 

To  render  this  close  translation  still  more  conform- 
able with  the  original,  it  was  collated  with  Greek  man- 
uscripts in  Egypt,  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
eentury.  The  person  who  undertook  this  collation 
was  Thomas,  bishop  of  Germanicia ;  and  he  not  only 
corrected  the  Syriac  text  from  those  manuscripts, 
where  he  thought  that  correction  was  necessary,  but 
at  other  times  he  noted  their  various  readings  in  the 
margin.  As  these  various  readings  were  taken  from 
manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  were 
probably  much  older,  than  the  oldest  now  extant,  they 
are  of  course  important  to  sacred  criticism.  A  copy 
of  this  revision  or  edition  of  the  Philoxenian  version. 


7S,  LECTURE  IV. 

with  the  Greek  readings  in  the  margin,  is  now  in  the 
Bodleian  Librar}^ ;  and  it  has  been  printed  by  Dr. 
White,  the  Hebrew  Professor  at  Oxford,  with  short, 
but  veiy  useful  notes. 

Tiie  collation  of  the  Philoxenian  version  is  the  last 
effort  in  sacred  criticism,  which  was  attempted  in 
Egypt :  nor  does  any  part  of  Asia,  since  that  period, 
present  us  with  a  similar  undertaking.  In  six  years 
from  the  date  of  this  collation,  commenced  the  Era, 
and  soon  afterwards  the  devastation,  of  the  Arabs, 
The  Jewish  school  at  Tiberias,  with  another,  which 
had  been  established  at  Babylon,  continued,  it  is  true, 
to  preserve  a  precarious  existence.  It  is  true  also, 
that  learning  revived  under  the  Caliphs  of  Bagdad  ; 
but  it  was  not  the  learning  of  tte  Bible.  The  Chris- 
tians of  the  East  remained  in  subjection  and  ignorance ; 
and  even  the  Jews  were  compelled  at  last,  to  abandon 
the  schools,  to  which  they  were  so  long  attached. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  from  the  East  to  the  Greek 
empire  at  this  period,  we  shall  find  it  equally  devoid  of 
materials  for  our  present  inquiry.  Indeed  the  criticism 
of  the  Bible  does  not  appear  to  have  ever  taken  root 
in  Greece  :  and  the  metropolis  of  the  Greek  empire, 
as  far  as  religion  was  concerned,  seems  to  have  been 
wholly  engaged  with  the  controverted  points  of  dog- 
matic Theology. 

If  we  go  onward  to  the  West  of  Europe,  the  pros- 
pect is  still  gloomy  :  for  after  the  death  of  Jerom,  we 
find  no  one  among  the  Latin  fathers,  who  could  lay 
claim  to  the  title  of  critic.  Some  dawnings  of  this 
science  occasionally  indeed  broke  through  the  general 


LECTURE  IV.  79 

darkness  ;  and  the  corruptions,  which  then  were  creep- 
ing into  the  Latin  Vulgate,  from  tht:  removal  especial- 
ly of  marginal  glosses  into  the  text,  were  noticed  by 
some  men  of  superior  sagacity,  who  at  the  same  time 
endeavoured  to  apply  a  remedy  for  the  evil.  Alcuin, 
secretary  to  Charlemagne,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century,  and  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of 
that  aee,  undertook  to  revise  the  Vulgate,  f  om  the 
Hebrew  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  from  the  Greek 
in  the  New.  Another  revision  of  the  Vulgate  was 
undertaken  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  by 
Lanfrane,  archbishop  of  Canterbury.  And  about  fifty 
years  afterwards  a  third  revision  was  attempted  in  Ita- 
ly by  Cardinal  Nicolaus,  who  made  the  same  com- 
plaint of  the  Vulgate,  which  Jerom  had  made  of  the 
old  version,  "  quot  codices  tot  examplariaJ''*  At  length 
these  complaints  became  so  general  as  to  give  rise  to 
the  Correctoria  Biblica,  in  which  the  false  readings  of 
the  Vulgate  were  corrected  by  a  comparison,  partly 
with  the  originals,  and  partly  with  more  ancient  man- 
uscripts. But  our  countryman,  Roger  Bacon,  who 
acknowledges  the  evil,  and  describes  some  of  its  caus- 
es, appears  to  have  been  dissatisfied  with  many  of 
those  corrections. 

While  the  criticism  of  the  middle  ages,  in  Eng- 
land, France,  and  Italy,  was  confined  to  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate, the  south  of  Spain  produced  a  race  of  critics  in 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  who  might  contend  with  those  of 
any  age  or  nation.  When  the  learned  Jews  of  Tibe- 
rias and  Babylon  were  compelled  to  take  refuge  iu 
Europe,  the^  chiefly  settled  in  that  part  of  Spain, 


80  LECTURE  IV. 

which  was  inhabited  by  the  Moors,  who  spake  the 
language  then  become  vernacular  in  the  countries, 
from  which  the  Jews  were  driven.  Hence  the  south 
of  Spain  became,  during  the  middle  ages,  the  centre 
of  Hebrew  learning.  It  is  sufficient  to  mention  the 
names  of  Abn  Ezra,  Moses  Maimonides,  and  David 
Kimchi,  who  were  all  born  in  Spain  in  the  twelfth 
century,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  that  Hebrew  learn- 
ing, which  afterwards  extended  to  Germany,  and  was 
thence  propagated  by  the  invention  of  printing 
throughout  the  rest  of  Europe. 

Reuchlin,  or  Capnio,  the  father  of  Hebrew  learning 
among  Christians,  was  born  at  Pfortsheim  in  Suabia 
in  1454.  Being  a  man  of  rank,  as  well  as  of  learning, 
he  operated  not  only  by  precept,  but  by  example : 
and  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  it  became  the 
fashion  in  Germany  to  study  the  Old  Testament  in 
Hebrew.  For  this  study  an  opportunity  was  afforded 
by  the  circumstance,  that  the  Hebrew  Bible  was  one 
of  the  earliest  printed  books,  the  first  edition  having 
been  printed  in  1488,  and  parts  of  it,  as  the  Psalms, 
and  the  Pentateuch,  still  earlier.  The  Catholic  clergy 
at  Cologne  opposed  indeed,  to  the  utmost  of  their 
power,  the  cultivation  of  the  Hebrew  language,  which 
they  considered  as  replete  with  danger,  not  only  to  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  but  to  the  church,  of  which  they  were 
members.  Nor  were  their  fears  ungrounded.  The 
revival  of  Grecian  literature  about  the  same  period,  of 
which  Capnio  was  likewise  one  of  the  chief  promot- 
ers, increased  the  dangers  of  the  church  of  Rome : 
and  Luther  began  his  reformation  before  Capnio  died. 


LECTURE  IT.  8i 

The  preceding  review  of  the  progress,  which  was 
made  by  sacred  criticism,  during  the  early  and  the 
middle  ages,  is  sufficient  to  supply  the  student  in  Di- 
vinity with  general  notions  on  this  subject,  and  to  fur- 
nish him  with  a  clue  to  future  inquiries.  More  than 
this  it  is  hardly  possible  to  perform  in  a  public  lecture, 
in  which  a  limit  must  be  assigned  to  minuteness  of 
investigation,  or  the  attention  of  the  audience  would 
soon  be  exhausted.  In  fact,  minuteness  of  investiga- 
tion must  be  reserved  for  the  closet ;  and  all  that  now 
remains  for  the  lecturer  to  perform,  in  respect  to  the 
critical  labours  of  the  early  and  the  middle  ages,  is  to 
mention  the  works,  from  which  a  more  ample  knowl- 
edge of  those  critical  labours  may  be  derived. 

Of  the  labours  of  Origen  in  amending  the  text  of 
the  Septuagint,  Montfaucon,  the  editor  of  the  Hexaplo- 
rum  Origenis  quce  supersunt^  has  given  a  full  account 
in  the  preface,  entitled,  Prceliminaria  i?t  Hexapla  Ori- 
genisj  which  is  divided  into  eleven  chapters,  according 
to  the  subjects,  of  which  it  treats.  Another  work, 
which  ought  to  be  consulted,  though  it  was  published 
before  Montfaucon's  edition,  is  that  of  Humphrey  Hody, 
who  was  Greek  Professor  at  Oxford  in  the  beginning 
of  the  last  century.  This  work  is  entitled,  De  Biblio- 
rum  Textibus  origmalibuSy  versionibus  Gi'cecis  et  Lati- 
nd  VulgatUj  libri  qiiatuor^  and  was  printed  at  Oxford 
in  1705.  Among  the  writers  on  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion, no  one  has  displayed  either  more  knowledge  of 
the  subject,  or  more  critical  sagacity,  than  Hody. 
The  fourth  and  last  part  of  this  work,  is  that  which 
relates  to  the  Hexapla. 
11 


82  LECTURE  IV. 

Of  the  similar  labours  of  Luciaii  and  Hesychius, 
in  amending  ihe  text  of  the  Septuagint,  there  is  no 
writer  either  ancient  or  modern,  from  whom  any  par- 
ticular account  can  be  derived.  Their  editions  are 
no  longer  in  existence  :  nor  have  even  fragments  re- 
mained of  them.  Readings,  derived  from  those  edi- 
tions, are  undoubtedly  contained  in  manuscripts  of 
the  Septuagint :  but  we  have  no  means  of  distinguish- 
ing them  from  other  readings.  We  only  know,  that 
those  editions  did  exist,  and  were  in  high  repute  :  and 
fgrr  this  information,  little  as  it  is,  we  are  chiefly  in- 
debted to  Jerom,  who  has  occasionally  mentioned 
them,  especially  in  his  Preface  to  the  Chronicles,  and 
in  his  Preface  to  the  four  Gospels. 

Of  the  industry  bestowed  by  the  learned  Jews  of 
Tiberias  on  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the 
most  complete  information  is  aiForded  by  John  Bux- 
torf,  who  was  born  in  Westphalia  about  forty  years 
after  the  death  of  Capnio,  and  after  having  studied  at 
several  German  universities,  was  at  last  Professor  of 
the  Oriental  languages,  at  Bale  or  Basel  in  Switzer- 
land. To  his  work  on  this  subject  he  gave  the  title 
of  Tiberias  :  it  was  first  printed  at  Basel  in  1620,  and 
reprinted  in  1665  with  additions  by  his  son,  John 
James  Buxtorf.  No  Christian  has  ever  possessed  so 
great  a-  share  of  Jewish  literature,  as  John  Buxtorf : 
his  Tiberias  is  indispensably  necessary  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  Masora,  and  indeed  all  the  other 
writers  on  this  subject  have  derived  their  materials 
from  Buxtorf,  among  whom  we  may  particularly 
mention  Bishop   Brian  Walton,  who  has  given  an 


LECTURE  IV.  83 

account  of  the  Masora  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
Prolegomena  prefixed  to  the  London  Polyglot. 

Of  the  industry  employed  by  Jerom  on  the  Latin 
version,  the  first  source  of  intelligence  is  Jerom's  owi> 
works,  of  which  the  Benedictine  edition  by  Martianay 
was  printed  at  Paris  in  five  volumes  folio  between  the 
years  1696  and  1706  :  but  the  last,  the  most  complete, 
and  the  best  arranged  edition,  was  published  by  Val- 
larsi  at  Verona,  between  1734  and  1742  in  eleven  vol- 
umes folio.  The  information,  which  relates  to  our 
present  subject,  must  be  chiefly  sought  in  die  first 
volume  of  Martianay's  edition,  and  in  the  nmth  and 
tenth  of  Vallarsi's  :  for  these  are  the  volumes,  which 
contain  the  Bibliotheca  divina  Hieronymi,  with  the 
dissertations  of  the  editors  on  Jerom's  translation  and 
correction  of  the  Scriptures.  But  to  form  a  due  es- 
timate of  the  excellencies  or  the  defects  in  those  trans- 
lations and  corrections,  it  is  further  necessary  to  con- 
sult the  Prolegomena  of  Walton,  Mill,  and  Wetstein, 
with  Simon's  Critical  History,  and  the  Introduction 
of  Michaelis. 

On  the  criticism  of  the  New  Syriac  or  Philoxenian 
version,  which  was  displayed  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventh  century  by  Thomas,  bishop  of  Germanicia, 
the  first,  though  very  imperfect,  account  was  given  in 
the  second  volume  of  the  Bibliotheca  Orientalis  by 
Assemani,  who  derived  his  intelligence  from  Syrian 
writers.  More  particular  information  may  be  derived 
from  a  treatise  entitled  Dissertatio  de  Syriacarum  novi 
foederis  versioimm  indole  atque  usu^  published  in  1761, 
by  Dr.  Glocester  Ridley,  who  possessed  the  manu- 


84  LECTURE  IV. 

scripts  of  the  Philoxenian  version,  which  are  now  at 
Oxibrcl,  and  from  which  Dr.  White  printed  his  edi- 
tion. But  I  know  of  no  work,  in  which  the  subject 
is  so  fully  discussed  as  in  the  Introduction  of  Micha- 
elis. 

For  the  efforts,  which  were  made  in  the  ninth  and 
following  centuries  to  correct  the  Latin  Vulgate,  the 
above-mentioned  work  of  Hody  must  be  again  con- 
sulted. And  for  the  merit  of  those  learned  Jews,  who 
distinguished  themselves  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth 
centuries,  must  be  consulted  Woljii  Bibliotheca  He- 
breea,  which  was  published  at  Hamburg  between  1715 
and  1733  in  four  quarto  volumes. 

The  description,  which  has  been  given  in  this 
Lecture,  has  been  given,  as  the  subjects  occurred, 
without  regard  to  any  other,  than  chronological  order. 
But  from  the  sixteenth  century  to  the  present  period, 
the  labours  of  the  learned  are  so  connected  in  the  sub- 
jects of  their  inquiry,  that  it  is  necessary  to  keep  that 
connexion  in  view :  and  that  connexion  would  be 
lost,  if  the  subjects  were  intermixed.  Though  chro- 
nological order  therefore  will  still  be  preserved  in  each 
single  description,  the  subjects  themselves  must  be 
described  separately. 

The  subject  of  the  next  Lecture  will  be  the  Criti- 
cism of  the  Greek  Testament, 


LECTURE   V. 


The  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament  is  a  sub- 
ject of  the  very  first  importance  to  every  Christian : 
and  though  a  knowledge  of  the  language,  in  which  it 
was  written,  is  necessary  for  the  exercise  of  that  criti- 
cism, yet  even  without  such  knowledge  some  notion 
may  be  formed  of  the  efforts  of  the  learned,  to  place 
the  documents  of  Christianity  on  a  firm  foundation. 
The  importance  of  this  subject  must  be  manifest  to 
every  one,  who  considers,  that  the  criticism  of  the 
Greek  Testament  contains  the  elements  of  that  analy- 
sis, by  which  we  gradually  discover  the  truth  of  our 
religion. 

To  determine  the  mode  of  analysis,  which  is  ne- 
cessary for  this  purpose,  of  analysis,  which  shall  bring 
with  it  conviction,  let  us  suppose  a  man  of  liberal  edu- 
cation, of  sound  understanding,  and  of  serious  dispo- 
sition, who  in  his  religious  opinions,  for  want  of  proper 
instruction  on  that  subject,  has  remained  unsettled, 
but  would  willingly  assent  to  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
provided  certain  propositions,  necessary  to  establish 
that  truth,  were  clearly  explained  to  him.  A  man  of 
this  description,  if  a  person  endeavoured  to  convince 


86  LECTURE  V. 

him  from  the  New  Testament,  would  argue  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner.  '*  The  book,  which  you  lay  before  me, 
professes  indeed  to  contain  a  faithful  account  of  what 
was  done  and  taught,  both  by  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  by  others,  who  assisted  in  the  propagation 
of  it.  But  you  cannot  expect,  that  I  should  allow  its 
pretensions  to.  be  ^  iilid,  till  3-0U  have  assigned  sufficient 
reasons  that  they  arc  so  ;  and  these  reasons  involve 
several  propositions,  which  must  be  distinctly  stated, 
and  distinctly  proved.  That  our  attention  may  not 
be  distracted  by  discussing  different  subjects  at  the 
same  time,  let  us,  in  the  first  instance,  confine  our- 
selves to  the  Epistles,  which  you  ascribe  to  St.  Paul, 
who,  as  you  assure  me,  not  only  became  a  zealous 
promoter,  from  a  zealous  enemy  of  Christianity,  but 
was  vested  even  with  divine  authority  for  that  purpose. 
On  this  divine  authority  you  found  a  set  of  doctrines, 
which  you  require  me  to  receive  through  the  medium 
of  }^our  interpretation,  and  declare  at  the  same  time, 
that  if  I  do  not  receive  them,  the  consequences  will 
be  the  most  dreadful,  that  imagination  can  conceive. 
Now  I  am  perfectly  willing  (the  supposed  person 
might  continue  to  say)  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  assent 
to  truths  of  such  importance;  but  I  must  previously 
know  that  they  are  truths,  or  I  have  no  foundation  for 
my  assent.  For  the  present  I  will  wave  the  question, 
whether  your  interpretations  be  right  or  wrong; 
though  I  am  well  assured,  that  something  more  is  re- 
quisite to  a  right  understanding  of  those  Epistles,  than 
is  possessed  by  many,  who  venture  to  explain  them. 
But  whatever  be  thtir  meanings  you  must  first  con- 


LECTURE  V.  87 

vince  me,  that  St.  Paul  was  the  author  of  them,  or  you 
leave  them  devoid  of  all  religious  obligation.  And  I 
ex[3ect,  that  your  proof  be  conducted,  not  with  lofty 
declamation,  or  deep  denunciation  against  unbelief; 
but  by  sober  sense,  and  plain  reason.  For  though  I 
am  ready  to  place  implicit  confidence  in  St.  Paul^  as 
soon  as  you  have  proved,  that  he  was  a  teacher  sent 
from  God  ;  though  I  am  ready  to  have  unboundecl 
faith  in  divine  doctrines,  as  soon  as  I  know,  that  they 
are  divine  ;  }et  I  cannot  transfer tliis unbounded  faith 
to  any  inodern  preacher  of  the  Gospel,  however  great 
his  pretensions,  whether  from  learning,  or  from  sanc- 
tity. When  you  therefore  assure  me,  that  St.  Paul 
had  a  divine  commission,  and  that  he  wrote  the  Epis- 
tles in  question,  I  expect  these  assertions,  on  your 
part,  to  be  supported  by  argument :  for  ijour  author- 
ity goes  as  far  as  your  arguments  go,  and  no  further." 
If  the  theologian,  to  whom  this  supposed  person 
addressed  himself,  were  a  man  accustomed  to  biblical 
investigation,  and  had  sought  a  (6asi^  for  his  faith,  such 
theologian  would  reply,  "  I  will  undertake  to  produce 
arguments,  which  shall  convince  any  reasonable  man, 
that  Paul,  the  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  was  really  the 
author  of  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  him  :  and  when  this 
point  has  been  established,  we  have  then  a  foundation, 
on  which  our  superstructure  may  rest  without  dan- 
ger." But  before  you  undertake  this  task,  the  ob- 
jector may  still  reply,  there  are  certain  preliminaries, 
which  must  be  settled  between  us,  or  we  shall  never 
come  to  any  definite  conclusion.  You  must  not  take 
the  English  translation,  as  the  work,  which  is  to  be 


8^  LECTURE  V. 

proved  authentic ;  for  tlie  term  authentic  translation  is 
a  term  without  meaning.  You  may  say  a  correct 
translation,  or  a  faithful  translation  ;  but  the  term  au- 
thentic applies  only  to  the  origuial^  it  applies  only  to 
the  Greek  Epistles,  as  written,  or  alleged  to  be  writ- 
ten, by  St.  Paul  himself.  Now  that  the  Greek  man- 
uscripts of  those  Epistles  very  frequently  diifer,  as 
well  from  each  other,  as  from  the  printed  editions,  is 
a  fact,  which  it  would  be  useless  to  deny,  and  absurd 
to  overlook.  Which  therefore  of  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts, will  you  take  into  your  hand,  when  you  as- 
sert, *'  these  are  the  Epistles,  which  proceeded  from 
the  pen  of  St.  Paul."  This  is  no  easy  matter  to  de- 
termine ;  and  yet  it  must  be  determined,  if  the  ques- 
tion of  authenticity  be  examined  with  that  precision, 
which  the  importance  of  the  subject  demands.  This 
supposed  conversation  will  render  our  present  subject 
familiar  to  every  hearer :  it  will  shew  him,  where, 
and  what  is  the  key-stone  of  the  arch,  which  supports 
the  fabric  of  Christianity. 

The  first  operation,  tlierefore,  in  respect  to  the 
Greek  Testament,  which  must  be  performed  by  a 
theologian,  who  intends  to  build  his  faith  on  a  firm 
foundation,  is  to  ascertain  what  copy  of  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  St.  Paul,  what  copy  of  an  Epistle  ascribed 
to  any  other  Apostle,  what  copy  of  a  Gospel  ascribed 
to  this  or  that  Evangelist,  has  the  strongest  claim  to 
be  received  by  us,  as  a  true  copy  of  the  author's  own 
manuscript ;  whoever  the  author,  or  authors,  may  re- 
ally have  been,  which  must  be  left  to  future  inquiry, 
or  we  shall  again  take  for  granted  the  thing  to  be  prov- 


LECTURE  V.  89 

ed.  Now  the  investigation  of  this  previous  question 
is  a  work  of  immense  labour.  The  Greek  manu- 
scripts of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  (or,  as  we  should  rather 
say  in  the  present  stage  of  our  inquiry,  of  the  Epistles 
ascribed  to  St.  Paul,)  amount,  as  flir  as  we  know 
them,  to  more  than  an  hundred  and  fifty :  and  the 
Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  with  which  we  are 
acquainted,  amount  to  more  than  three  hundred  and 
fifty.  But  among  all  these  manuscripts  there  is  none, 
which  is  so  far  entitled  to  precedence,  as  to  be  receiv- 
ed for  the  true  copy,  of  which  we  are  in  search.  In 
fact  the  truth  lies  scattered  among  them  all :  and  in 
order  to  obtain  the  truth,  we  must  gather  from  them 
all.  Nor  is  an  examination  of  these  manuscripts,  nu- 
merous as  they  are,  alone  sufficient  for  the  object, 
which  we  have  in  view.  The  quotations  from  the 
Greek  Testament  in  the  voluminous  writings  of  the 
Greek  fathers,  must  likewise  be  examined,  that  we 
may  knovv  what  they  found  in  their  Greek  manu- 
scripts. The  ancient  versions  must  also  be  consult- 
ed, in  order  to  learn  what  the  writers  of  those  versions 
found  in  their  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament.  When 
all  these  collections  from  manuscripts,  fathers,  and 
versions,  have  been  formed,  and  reduced  into  proper 
order,  we  have  then  to  determine  in  every  single  in- 
stance, which  among  the  various  readings  is  probably 
the  genuine  reading.  And  that  we  may  know  how  to 
determine,  we  must  establish  laws  of  criticism,  calcu- 
lated to  counteract  the  causes,  which  produced  the 
variations,  and,  by  these  means,  to  restore  the  true 
copy,  of  which  we  are  in  search. 
12 


90  LECTURE  V. 

Now  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  labours,  for 
which,  when  taken  collectively,  no  single  life  is  sufii- 
cient,  would  be  recommended  even  by  a  zealot  in  his 
profession,  as  forming  a  regular  part  of  theological 
study.  Those  labours  are  unnecessary  for  us  ;  they 
have  been  already  undertaken,  and  executed  with 
success.  But  if  the  industry  of  our  predecessors  has 
removed  the  burden  from  our  shoulders,  we  must  not 
therefore  become  indifferent  spectators,  unconcerned 
whether  the  burden  be  ive/l  or  ill  supported.  We 
must  at  least  inform  ourselves  of  the  nature  and  ex- 
tent of  those  labours  ;  or  we  shall  never  know,  wheth- 
er the  object  has  been  obtained,  for  which  they  were 
undertaken.  We  must  make  ourselves  acquainted 
with  the  causes,  which  produced  the  variations  in 
question,  or  we  shall  never  know,  whether  the  laws  of 
criticism,  which  profess  to  remedy  that  evil,  are 
founded  in  truth  or  falsehood. 

We  must  inquire  therefore,  first,  into  the  causes 
of  the  evil,  and  then  into  the  remedies,  which  have 
been  applied  to  it ;  remedies,  which  we  shall  find 
hereafter  to  have  been  applied  with  great  success. 

The  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  dur- 
ing the  fourteen  hundred  years,  which  elapsed  from 
the  apostolic  age  to  the  invention  of  printing,  were 
exposed,  like  all  other  manuscripts,  to  mistakes  in 
traqscribing :  and  as  every  copy  had  unavoidably 
some  errors,  those  errors  multiplied  with  the  multipli- 
cation of  the  copies.  Letters,  syllables,  words,,  were 
added,  omitted,  or  transposed,  from  mere  carelessness 
in  writing,   whether  the  writer  transcribed  from  a 


LECTURE  V.  U 

manuscript  before  him,  or  wrote,  as  was  frequently 
the  case,  from  tiie  dictation  of  another.  In  the  lattei* 
case,  his  ear  might  be  deceived  by  a  similarity  in  the 
sound  of  different  words  ;  in  the  former  case,  his  ei^e 
might  be  deceived  by  a  similarity  in  their  form,  by 
diiferent  words  having  the  same  final  syllable,  or  by 
different  sentences  having  the  same  final  word.  At 
other  times,  a  transcriber  misunderstood  the  manu- 
script, from  which  he  copied,  either  falsely  interpret- 
ing its  abbreviations,  or  falsely  dividing  the  words, 
where  they  were  written  (as  in  the  most  ancient  man- 
uscripts) without  intervals.  Or  the  fault  might  be 
partly  attributable  to  the  manuscript  itself,  in  cases, 
where  its  letters  were  wholly  or  partly  effaced  or  fad- 
ed. 

But  the  greatest  variations  arose  from  alterations 
made  by  design.  The  transcribers  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament were  not  bound,  hke  the  transcribers  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  by  rul^s  prescribed  to  them  in  a  Ma- 
sora,  or  critical  law  book.  Hence  they  often  took  the 
liberty  of  improving^  as  they  supposed,  on  that  manu- 
script, of  which  it  was  their  business  to  have  given 
only  a  copy  ;  a  liberty  similar  to  that,  which  is  now 
taken  in  a  printnig- office,  where  a  compositor  often 
improves  on  the  manuscript  of  an  author.  Hence,  a 
native  of  Greece,  accustomed  to  hear  his  own  lan- 
guage withou  an  admixture  of  Oriental  idioms,  and 
regarding  therefore  a  Hebraism  or  a  Syraism,  in  the 
light  of  a  solecism,  would  accordingly  correct  it,  not 
considering  or  not  knowiiig,  that  these  Hebraisms  and 
S^iaisms  are  the  very  idioms,  which  we  should  ex- 


»3  LECTURE  V. 

pect  from  Greek  writers,  who  were  born  or  educated 
in  Judea,  idioms  ■  herefore  which  form  a  strong  argu- 
ment for  the  authenticity  of  their  writings.  At  other 
times,  these  same  improvers,  when  they  remarked 
that  one  EvangeHst  recorded  the  same  thing  more  ful- 
ly than  another,  (a  circumstance  again  of  great  impor- 
tance, as  it  shews  there  was  no  combination  among 
the  EvangeUsts,)  regarded  this  want  of  perfect  coinci- 
dence as  an  imperfection,  which  they  deemed  it  ne- 
cessary to  remove,  by  supplying  the  shorter  account 
from  the  longer.  Nor  did  they  spare  even  the  quo- 
tations from  the  Old  Testament,  whether  those  quota- 
tions were  transcripts  from  the  Septuagint,  or  transla- 
tions from  the  Hebrew  by  the  author  himself.  If 
they  only  differed  from  the  transcriber's  Septuagint, 
he  concluded,  that  they  were  wrong,  and  required 
amendment. 

But  the  most  fruitful  source  of  designed  altera- 
tions was  the  removal  of  marginal  annotations  into  the 
text.  Indeed  to  this  cause  may  be  ascribed  the  al- 
terations from  parallel  passages,  whenever  those  par- 
allel passages  had  been  written  in  the  margin.  Oth- 
er marginal  notes,  consisted  of  explanations,  or  ap- 
plications of  the  adjacent  text :  and,  when  a  manu- 
script, with  such  notes,  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  trans- 
criber, he  either  supposed,  that  they  were  parts  of 
the  text,  accidentally  omitted,  and  supplied  in  the 
margin,  or  considered  them  as  useful  additions, 
which  there  would  be  no  harm  in  adopting.  In  ei- 
ther case  he  took  them  into  the  text  of  that  manu- 
script, which  he  himself  was  writing. 


LECTURE  V.  93 

The  latter  case  may  indeed  be  referred  to  that 
class  of  various  readings,  which  derive  their  origin 
from  wilful  corruption,  being  introduced  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  obtaining  support  to  some  particular  doc- 
trine. That  such  things  have  been  done,  and  done 
by  all  parties,  is  not  to  be  denied :  for  we  have  ex- 
amples on  record.  But  as  we  have  received  our 
manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  not  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  ancient  heretics,  but  from  the  orthodox 
members  of  the  Greek  church,  we  have  less  reason 
to  apprehend,  that  they  have  suffered,  in  points  of 
doctrine,  from  heretical  influence. 

Having  thus  taken  a  general  review  of  the  causes, 
which  operated,  till  the  invention  of  printing,  in  pro- 
ducing the  variations  of  the  Greek  Text,  I  have 
ROW  to  undertake  the  more  agreeable  office  of  re- 
cording the  attempts,  which  have  been  made  in  la- 
ter ages,  to  restore  it  to  its  original  purity. 

For  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  to  give  a  descrip- 
tion, or  history  of  the  critical  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament ;  that  is,  a  description  of  all  those  edi- 
tions, which  were  printed  either  wholly  from  Greek 
manuscripts,  or  with  emendations  from  Greek  man- 
uscripts, or  with  a  critical  apparatus,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  emendation.  In  this  description,  an  account 
of  the  materials  employed  by  each  editor,  and  of 
the  use  which  he  made  of  them,  must  form  an  es- 
sential part :  for  hence  only  can  we  determine  the 
value  of  his  edition.  We  must  observe  also  the  in- 
fluence of  preceding  on  subsequent  editions,  and 
trace  the  progress  of  the  Greek  text  throughout  its 
several  stages. 


U  LECTURE  V. 

The  description  must  be  divided  into  two  pe- 
riods. The  or.e  commences  with  the  first  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  and  ends  with  the  Elzevir  edi- 
tion of  1624  :  the  other  includes  the  critical  editions, 
which  have  appeared  from  that  time  to  the  present. 
The  first  period  is  limited  by  the  Elzevir  edition  of 
1624,  because  this  edition  forms  an  epocha  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Greek  text.  After  having  fluctuated,  dur- 
ing more  than  a  century  in  the  preceding  editions,  the 
Greek  text  acquired  in  this  edition  a  consistency, 
which  it  has  retained  to  the  present  day.  In  this  edi- 
tion was  established  the  Greek  text,  which  is  now  in 
daily  use,  and  is  known  by  the  name  of  the  Textus 
receptus.  The  description  therefore  of  the  first  peri- 
od will  record  the  gradual  formation  of  this  text,  and 
will  furnish  an  estimate  of  its  excellences  or  defects. 
Nor  will  the  description  of  the  second  period  be  less 
important :  for  it  will  contain  the  rise  aisd  pro^^ress  of 
that  critical  apparatus,  which  now  enables  us  lo  form 
a  more  accurate  text,  than  it  was  possible  to  form  at 
an  earlier  period. 

The  first  printed  edition  of  any  part  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  is  one  by  Aldus  Manutius,  who  printed 
the  six  first  chapters  of  St.  John's  Gospel  at  Venice 
in  1504;  and  in  1512  the  whole  of  St.  John's  Gospel 
was  printed  at  Tiibingen  in  Suabia.  But  these  im- 
pressions, though  it  is.  proper  to  inention  them,  as  the 
first  of  their  kind,  can  now  be  regarded  only  as  litera- 
ry curiosities.  They  had  no  influence  on  subsequent 
editions,  and  therefore  are  of  no  importance  in  a  criti- 
cal history  of  the  Greek  text. 


LECTURK  V.  9^ 

The  first  printed  edition  of  the  xuhole  Greek  Tes- 
tament is  that,  which  is  contained  ia  the  Compluten- 
sian  Polyglot,  so  called  from  Coniplutum,  now  Alca- 
la,  in  Spain,  where  it  was  printed.     The  volume  con- 
taining the  Greek  Testament,  which  is  accompanied 
with  the  Latin  Vulgate  in  a  parallel  column,  is  dated 
the  10th  of  January  1514.     The  whole  was  conduct- 
ed under  the  auspices  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  archbish- 
op of  Toledo,  who  employed  for  that  purpose  some  of 
the  most  distinguished  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars  of 
that  age,  and  who  spared  neither  pains  nor  expense, 
in  procuring  Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts. 

The  Greek  manuscripts,  which  were  used  for  this 
work,  are  not  particularly  described  by  the  editors, 
but  are   all  included   under   one   general  character, 

namely,  "  exemplaria vetustissima  simul  et  emen- 

datissima.''''     But  as  the  term  "  ancient"  is  only  a  rel- 
ative expression  ;  as  the  accuracy  of  a  manuscript,  in 
its  critical  sense,  dejiends  not  on  the  precision  of  its 
orthographical  execution,  but  on  the  genuineness  of 
its  readings ;    and  as  all  editors  are  disposed  to  en- 
hance the  value  of  their  materials,  the  assertion  of  the 
Complutensian   editors,    in   respect  to  their   manu- 
scripts, requires  the  confirmation  of  internal  evidence. 
But  the  manuscripts  themselves,  which  were  deposit- 
ed in  the  university  library  at  Alcala,  are  no  longer 
in  existence.     And  if  manuscripts  were  sent  to  them 
by  Pope  Leo  the  Tenth,  as  the  editors  assert,  from 
the  Vatican  Library,  no  one  knows,  at  present,  what 
they  are,  or  even  where  they  must  be  sought. 

The  only  means  therefore  of  ascertaining  the  qual- 


96  LECTURE  V. 

ity  of  the  Greek  manuscript  or  manuscripts,  from 
which  the  Complutensian  Greek  Testament  was 
printed,  are  those,  which  are  afforded  by  the  evidence 
of  the  Complutensian  text  itself.  And  this  internal 
evidence  directly  contradicts  the  assertion  of  the  edi- 
tors in  respect  to  the  antiquity  of  their  manuscripts. 
For  wherever  modern  Greek  manuscripts,  manu- 
scripts written  in  the  thirteenth,  fourteenth,  or  fif- 
teenth centuries,  differ  from  the  most  ancient  Greek 
manuscripts,  and  from  the  quotations  of  the  early 
Greek  fathers,  in  such  characteristic  readings  the 
Complutensian  Greek  Testament  almost  invariably 
agrees  with  the  modern,  in  opposition  to  the  ancient 
manuscripts.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  therefore, 
that  the  Complutensian  text  was  formed  from  mod- 
ern manuscripts  alone. 

The  only  cause  of  hesitation  on  this  subject  was 
removed  about  twenty  years  ago.  As  the  editors  had 
boasted  of  valuable  manuscripts,  sent  to  them  from 
the  Vatican  Library,  it  was  formerly  thought  not  im- 
probable, that  the  very  ancient  manuscript  marked  in 
the  Vatican  Library  1209,  and  distinguished  by  the 
name  of  The  Vatican  Manuscript,  was  one  of  the 
number.  And  as  only  imperfect  extracts  from  this 
manuscript  had  been  printed  till  very  lately,  we  had 
not  sufficient  data  to  ascertain  the  question.  But  in 
1788  Professor  Birch  of  Copenhagen  published,  in 
his  edition  of  the  four  Gospels,  complete  extracts  from 
this  manuscript.  Now  since  the  Complutensian  is 
the  first  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  since 
the  text  of  this  edition  has  had  great  influence  on  sub- 


XECTURE  V.  d!? 

sequent  editions,  and  it  is  therefore  important  to  de- 
termine the  value  of  its  readings,  I  have  taken  the 
pains  to  collate  the  Complutensian  edition  with  those 
extracts  from  the  Vatican  manuscript ;  but  have  nev- 
er found  in  it  a  reading  peculiar  to  that  manuscript. 
That  manuscript  therefore  could  not  have  been  used 
for  the  Complutensian  edition  :  for,  if  it  had,  the  in- 
fluence of  such  a  manuscript  must  have  been  some- 
times apparent.  And  even  were  this  conclusion  erro- 
neous, the  result  would  be  still  the  same  :  for,  if  it 
were  true,  that  the  Complutensian  editors  had  the  use 
of  the  Vatican  manuscript,  yet,  if  they  never  followed 
it,  except  where  it  harmonized  with  modern  manu- 
scripts, the  effect  is  the  same,  as  if  they  had  never 
used  it  at  all.  Whatever  zeal  then  may  have  been 
displayed,  both  by  Cardinal  Ximenes  and  by  the 
learned  men  who  assisted  him,  their  edition  contri- 
buted little  or  nothing  toward  the  restoring  of  the  pu- 
rity of  the  Greek  text. 

The  other  principal  editors  of  the  sixteenth  centu- 
ry were  Erasmus,  Robert  Stephens,  and  Beza.  But 
a  description  of  their  editions,  and  of  the  gradual  for- 
mation of  that  text,  which  is  now  in  common  use, 
must  be  deferred  to  the  following  Lecture. 


13 


LECTURE  ¥L 


In  the  preceding  Lecture  was  given  an  account 
of  the  Compkitensian  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
as  far  as  it  could  be  collected  from  the  imperfect  data, 
which  now  remain.  The  next  edition,  which  de- 
mands our  attention,  is  the  first  edition  by  Erasmus, 
of  w^hich  we  are  enabled  to  give  a  much  more  minute 
description,  because  we  are  much  better  acquainted, 
both  with  the  materials,  of  which  it  was  composed, 
and  with  the  manner,  in  which  those  materials  were 
applied.  A  minute  description  of  this  edition  is  like- 
wise of  much  greater  consequence,  as  its  influence  on 
subsequent  editions  was  much  greater,  than  that  of 
the  Complutensian.  It  was  printed  at  Basel,  or  Bale, 
in  Switzerland  in  1516,  and  was  the  first-published, 
though  not  the  first-printed  edition  of  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament. 

The  Greek  manuscripts,  which  were  used  by 
Erasmus  for  this  edition,  amounted  to  four,  l^eside  a 
manuscript  of  Theophylact,  containing  his  commen- 
tary on  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the  Epistles,  ac- 
companied with  the  Greek  text.  Three  of  those  four 
manuscripts  are  still  preserved  in  the  Public  Library 
at  Bale  ;  but  the  fourth  is  at  present  unknown.  It 
must  not  however  be  supposed,  that  those  four  man- 


LECTURE  VI.  9d 

^scripts  were  four  copies  of  the  whole  Greek  Testa- 
ment :  for  Greek  manuscripts  contain  usually  only 
parts  of  it.  Indeed  three  of  Erasmus's  manuscripts, 
when  put  together  made  only  one  copy  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  first  containing  only  the  Gospels,  the 
second  only  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  and  the  third 
only  the  book  of  Revelation.  From  these  three  man- 
uscripts, constituting  one  copy  of  the  whole,  he  print- 
ed his  Greek  Testament ;  but  not  from  these  manu- 
scripts unaltered.  Before  he  sent  them  to  the  press, 
he  made  many  corrections  ;  and  these  corrections 
were  founded,  pardy  on  his  fourth  manuscript,  partly 
on  his  manuscript  of  Theophylact,  partly  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  Vulgate,  and  partly  on  his  own  conjec- 
ture. 

The  value  of  this  edition  must  depend,  first  on 
the  value  of  its  materials,  and  secondly  on  the  mode 
of  employing  those  materials.  Now  his  manuscript 
of  the  Gospels,  which  is  one  of  the  three  now  preserv- 
ed at  Bale,  is  so  modern  a  manuscript,  that  according 
to  Wetstein,  it  was  ^\Titten  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
and  therefore  not  long  before  it  was  used  by  Eras- 
mus. The  manuscript  from  which  he  printed  the 
Acts  and  the  Epistles,  (another  of  the  three  now  pre- 
served at  Bale)  is  likewise  a  modern  manuscript, 
though  according  to  Wetstein,  who  examined  them 
both,  it  is  older  than  the  former. 

The  Greek  manuscript  of  the  Revelation,  which 
was  used  by  Erasmus,  belonged  at  that  time  to  Cap- 
nio :  but  all  the  efforts  of  the  learned  to  discover  where 
it  is  now  preserved,  have  been  hitherto  fruidess.  The 
character,  which  Erasmus  him^lf  has  given  of  this 


19^  LECTURE  VI. 

manuscript,  is  so  higli  in  respect  to  its  antiquity,  as  to 
make  it  almost  coeval  with  the  Apostles  themselves. 
"  Tatitcc  vetustatisy"^  says  Erasmus  to  Stanica,  "  ut 
apostolorum  atate  scriptum  videri  possit.'*'^  But  this 
declaration  must  be  construed  with  the  same  latitude, 
as  the  similar  declaration  of  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tors. For  in  this  very  manuscript  the  Greek  text 
was  accompanied  with  the  commentary  of  Arethas : 
and  ArethaSj  according  to  Fabricius,  a  name  of  great 
authority  in  the  literary  history  of  Greek  writers,  was 
subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age  by  no  less  a  period, 
than  nine  hundred  years. 

The  Greek  documents,  which  Erasmus  applied 
to  the  correction  of  the  manuscripts,  from  which  he 
printed  his  edition,  were,  his  fourth  manuscript,  and 
his  manuscript  of  Theophylact.  His  fourth  manu- 
script, which  is  the  third  of  the  tlire6  preserved  at 
Bale,  is  at  least  of  respectable  antiquity,  for  it  was 
written  in  the  tenth  century,  and,  -as  it  contains  the 
whole  New  Testament,  except  the  Revelation,  it 
might  have  afforded  him  considerable  service.  But 
Erasmus  made  very  little  use  of  it,  as  he  himself  re- 
lates in  his  answer  to  Stunica,  because  he  suspected, 
though  it  appears  unjustly,  that  it  contained  readings 
derived  from  the  Latin  Vulgate.  The  chief  source 
of  his  corrections  therefore  was  the  text  and  commen- 
tary of  Theophylact.  But  Theophylact  was  the  last 
of  the  Greek  fathers  :  he  lived  at  the  end  of  the  elev- 
enth century  :  and  his  quotations  from  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament are  not  to  be  compared,  in  deciding  the  au- 
thenticity of  a  reading,  with  the  quotation  of  the  early 
fathers.     In  the  book  of  Revelation,  Erasmus  had  no 


LECTURE  VI.  101 

Other  Greek  document,  than  the  manuscript,  from 
which  he  printed.  He  corrected  therefore  from  con- 
jecture, where  that  manuscript  was  inaccurate :  and 
where  it  was  defective,  as  especially  at  the  end,  where 
the  six  last  verses  were  wanting,  he  supplied  the  de- 
fect by  Greek  of  his  own  making  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate. 

If  we  may  judge  from  the  title-page,  Erasmus  had 
likewise  at  least  occasional  recourse  to  the  writings  of 
Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Cyril.  But  it  is  hardly 
possible  that  Erasmus  should  have  derived  many 
readings  from  their  works,  especially  from  the  v^^orks 
of  Origen  and  Cyril,  in  which  the  quotations  from 
the  Bible  are  indiscriminately  scattered,  and  of  which 
there  was  no  edition  at  that  time  provided  with  those 
convenient  indexes,  which  now  enable  a  collector  of 
various  readings  to  turn  in  an  instant  to  any  passage 
of  Scripture.  In  fact  no  edition  of  those  fathers  had 
then  been  printed  in  Greek  ;  for  the  editions  of  Ori- 
gen, Chrysostom,  and  Cyril,  which  were  then  in  print, 
were  only  in  a  Latin  translation. 

But  there  is  another  source  of  sacred  criticism,  of 
which  Erasmus  made  considerable  use,  though  it  is 
the  last  source,  from  which  we  should  suppose  that 
an  editor  would  have  drawn,  who  had  objected  to  the 
use  of  a  Greek  manuscript  on  the  ground  of  its  read- 
ings being  formed  from  the  Latin  Vulgate.  One 
should  hardly  suppose,  that  the  same  editor  would 
have  had  recourse  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  for  assistance 
in  the  formation  of  his  own  text.  Perhaps  however 
he  acted  more  from  necessity  than  choice.  When 
he  published  hii?  Greek  Testament,  the  Latin  Vulgate 


dU2  LECTURE  VI. 

liad  for  ages  been  the  oracle  of  the  Church  of  Rome : 
and  to  have  pubHshed  a  New  Testament,  without 
shewing  some  regard  for  this  oracle,  might  have  ex- 
posed him  to  more  embarrassment,  than  all  his  learn- 
ing could  have  removed. 

Lastly,  the  time  which  was  employed  in  the  exe- 
cution of  this  work,  bore  no  proportion  to  tlie  magni- 
tude of  the  undertaki!!g.  The  first  application  to  E- 
rasmus  on  tliis  subject  was  made  in  a  letter  from 
Rhenanus  bearing  date  the  17th  of  April  1515  :  and 
this  application  was  repeated  on  the  30th  of  April. 
Now  the  edition  itself,  as  appears  from  the  subscrip- 
tion^  was  finished  in  the  following  February.  Kv^n 
therefore  were  it  begun  immediately  on  the  second 
application,  which  from  other  circumstances  there  is 
reason  to  doubt,  it  could  not  have  employed  more  than 
nine  months,  both  in  the  preparation  for  it,  and  in  the 
printing  of  it.  And  Erasmus  had  not  merely  Greek 
materials  to  arrange ;  he  had  to  correct  a  Latin  ver- 
sion, which  he  published  in  a  parallel  column  with  the 
Greek  ;  he  had  also  to  furnish  a  considerable  body  of 
annotations.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten,  that  he  was 
engaged  at  the  same  time  in  the  publication  of  Je- 
rom's  works,  which  alone  would  have  been  sufficient 
to  have  occupied  his  whole  attention.  If  it  be  asked, 
why  Erasmus,  under  such  circumstances,  v\^as  so  pre- 
cipitate in  the  publication  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
the  answer  is,  that  in  this  respect  Erasmus  Mas  not 
his  own  master.  He  had  been  engaged  by  Frobenius, 
a  printer  and  bookseller  at  Bale,  to  publish  a  Greek 
Testament  for  a  certain  sum,  and  under  certain  con- 
ditions.    And  the  profits  of  Frobenius,  as  a  booksel- 


LECTURE  VI.  105 

]er,  depended  at  that  time  on  expedition ;  they  depend- 
ed on  his  edition  being  finished,  before  the  Complu- 
tensian,  already  printed,  was  delivered  to  the  public. 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  first  edition  by  Erasmus, 
of  which  it  was  necessary  to  give  a  minute  description, 
as  it  is  the  basis  of  all  the  subsequent  editions. 

In  three  years  from  the  publication  of  the  first 
edition,  Erasmus  published  a  second :  and  as  in  the 
mean  time  he  had  an  opportunity  of  consulting  other 
Greek  manuscripts,  or  of  receiving  extracts  from  his 
friends,  he  made  numerous  alterations  in  his  second 
edition,  which,  according  to  the  account  of  Dr.  Mill, 
amount  at  least  to  four  hundred.  And  in  1522  he 
published  a  third  edition,  in  which  was  added  the  sev- 
enth verse  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  John's  first  Epis- 
tle, which  he  had  not  printed  in  his  two  former  edi- 
tions, because  it  was  not  contained  in  his  Greek  man- 
uscripts. 

These  three  editions  were  published  by  Erasmus 
before  he  had  seen  the  Complutensian  Greek  Testa- 
ment,  which,  though  printed  in  1514,  remained, 
through  the  death  of  Cardinal  Ximenes,  more  than 
eight  years  unpublished  at  Alcala.  But  when  Eras- 
mus published  his  fourth  edition  in  1527,  he  availed 
himself  of  the  Complutensian,  especially  in  the  book 
of  Revelation,  where  he  had  only  one  manuscript,  and 
that  a  defective  one.  According  to  Dr.  Mill's  ac- 
count, in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  Greek  Testament, 
Erasmus  corrected  his  text  of  the  Revelation  in  nine- 
ty places  from  the  Complutensian  edition,  but  in  only- 
twenty- six  places  in  all  the  other  books.  The  fifth 
and  last  edition  by  Erasmus  was  printed  in  1535 : 


104  LECl'URE  VI. 

but,  according  to  the  same  authority,  it  differs  in  only' 
four  places  from  the  preceding. 

In  the  interval,  which  elapsed  between  the  first  and 
the  last  edition  of  Erasmus,  nine  or  ten  other  editions 
of  the  Greek  Testament  were  printed,  which  were  all 
taken  with  a  few  alterations  from  some  one  of  the  edi- 
tions of  Erasmus,  with  the  exception  of  the  edition  by 
Colinaeus,  which  was  printed  at  Paris  in  1534.  The 
text  of  this  edition  was  formed  partly  from  the  Com- 
plutensian  edition,  partly  from  the  editions  of  Eras- 
mus, and  partly  from  Greek  manuscripts,  which  were 
collated  for  that  purpose.  But  as  the  editor,  (which 
was  often  the  case  in  the  early  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament)  gave  no  account  of  the  sources,  from 
which  he  derived  his  materials,  it  was  suspected,  that 
all  those  readings,  which  were  contained  neither  in 
the  Complutensian,  nor  in  the  Erasmian  editions, 
readings,  which  according  to  Dr.  Mill  amount  to  more 
than  seven  hundred  and  fifty,  had  no  other  foundation, 
than  critical  conjecture.  It  has  been  since  discover- 
ed, that  those  readings  were  taken  from  Greek  manu- 
scripts :  three  of  them  are  still  preserved  at  Paris,  and 
have  been  collated  by  Wetstein  and  Griesbach.  The 
edition  of  Coliuceus  therefore  is  entitled  to  great  re- 
spect. But  partly  in  consequence  of  the  suspicion 
just  mentioned,  partly  in  consequence  of  the  superior 
though  undeserved  reputation  of  the  editions  publish- 
ed at  Paris,  a  few  years  afterwards,  by  his  son-in-law^ 
Robert  Stephens,  the  edition  of  Colinaeus  was  neg- 
lected, it  was  never  re-printed,  and  has  had  no  influ- 
ence on  the  modem  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 

No  editions  have  been  attended  with  greater  ce- 


LECTURE  VI.  105 

Icbrity,  than  the  editions  of  Robert  Stephens,  a  learn- 
ed bookseller  and  printer  at  Paris,  and  father  of  the 
still  more  learned  Henry  Stephens.  His  two  first 
editions  are  as  distinguished  by  the  elegant  neatness, 
as  the  third  and  chief  edition  by  the  splendor  of  its 
typographical  execution.  These  qualities  greatly 
contributed  toward  bringing  them  into  general  circu- 
lation :  and  the  critical  pretensions,  which  were  as- 
sumed by  the  editor,  seemed  to  stamp  on  them  an  in- 
delible value.  In  the  preface  to  the  first  edition,  which 
was  printed  at  Paris  in  1546,  says  Robert  Stephens, 
"  Having  obtained  froni  the  royal  library  several  man- 
uscripts, which,  from  their  appearance  of  antiquity, 
are  almost  entitled  to  adoration  f  codices  vetustatis  spe- 
cie pene  adorandosj  I  have  formed  from  them  this  edi- 
tion in  such  a  manner,  as  not  to  print  even  a  single 
letter,  which  is  not  confirmed  by  the  greater,  and  bet- 
ter part  of  them."  But  with  all  this  ostentation,  Rob- 
ert Stephens's  first  edition  is  little  more,  than  a  com- 
pilation from  the  Complutensian  and  the  fifth  edition 
of  Erasmus.  His  second  edition,  which  was  printed 
in  1549,  is  in  respect  to  its  exterior  a  close  resem- 
blance of  the  first ;  nor  even  in  respect  to  its  text  is  it 
materially  difierent.  But  these  editions  had  very  lit- 
tle influence  on  the  subsequent  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  an  influence  reserved  for  the  folio  edi- 
tion, which  appeared  in  the  following  year. 

The  text  of  this  folio  edition,  printed  in  1550,  was 
once  supposed  to  have  been  formed  entirely  on  the 
authority  of  Greek  manuscripts,  which  Robert  Ste- 
phens, in  the  Prefiice  to  it,  professes  to  have  collated  for 

that  purpose  a  second  and  even  a  third  time.     But  it 
14 


i06  LECTURE  Vr. 

is  so  far  from  having  been  formed  on  their  authority, 
that,  except  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  it  is  hardly  any- 
thing more  than  Erasmus's  fifth  edition  reprinted. 
And  even  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  where  he  often 
departs  from  Erasmus,  he  departs  only  for  the  sake  of 
Complutensian  readings.  In  fact  Stephens  himself 
has  openly  contradicted  his  own  declarations :  for  in 
the  margin  of  this  edition  there  are  more  than  a  hun- 
dred places,  in  which  he  has  quoted  all  his  authorities 
for  readings  different  from  his  own.  With  this  glar- 
mg  evidence,  evidence  which  requires  no  collation  of 
manuscripts,  but  only  a  superficial  view  of  the  edition 
itself,  in  order  to  be  perceived,  it  is  extraordinary  that 
credit  was  ever  attached  to  tlie  pretensions  of  the  edi- 
tor on  the  formation  of  the  text. 

There  is  another  point  of  view,  from  which  this 
edition  must  be  examined,  and  in  which  it  distinguish- 
es itself  from  all  preceding  editions,  namely  the  criti- 
cal apparatus  displayed  in  the  margin.  This  critical 
apparatus  consists  of  quotations  from  the  Compluten- 
sian edition,  and  from  fifteen  Greek  manuscripts. 
Now  the  Complutensian  edition  differs  from  that  of 
Stephens  in  more  than  thirteen  hundred  places,  of 
which  Stephens  has  totally  neglected  at  least  seven 
hundred  ;  and  those,  which  he  has  noticed,  are  often 
quoted  falsely.  The  same  objection  applies  to  the 
quotations  from  his  other  documents  as  far  as  they 
have  been  compared  :  and  Dr.  Mill  says  with  great 
propriety  of  the  collection  of  readings  exhibited  in 
Stephens's  margin,  "  in  pompam  magis  quam  in  usum 
congesta  videtur.^^ 

But  the  inward  defects  of  this  edition  were  over- 


LECTURE  VI.  Idr 

looked  for  its  outward  beauties.  There  was  also  a 
religious  morive,  which  operated  in  its  favour.  In 
England,  in  Holland,  and  in  Switzerland,  the  edition 
was  esteemed  for  the  sake  of  the  editor,  who  became 
a  convert  to  the  Protestant  cause,  and  fled  on  that  ac- 
count from  Paris  to  settle  at  Geneva,  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Calvin  and  Beza. 

The  next  revision  of  the  Greek  text  was  under- 
taken by  Beza,  who  like  Robert  Stephens  was  a  na- 
tive of  France,  and  fled  to  Switzerland  on  account  of 
his  religion.  The  critical  materials,  which  he  em- 
ployed, were  for  the  most  part  the  same,  as  those 
which  had  been  used  by  Robert  Stephens.  But  he 
had  likewise  the  advantage  of  that  very  ancient  manu- 
script of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  which  he  after- 
wards sent  to  this  University,  and  which  is  known  by 
the  name  of  the  Codex  Bezse.  He  had  likewise  a 
very  ancient  manuscript  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  which 
he  procured  from  Clermont  in  France,  and  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Codex  Claromontanus. 
Lastly,  he  had  the  advantage  of  the  Syriac  version, 
which  had  been  lately  published  by  Tremellius  with  a 
close  Latin  translation. 

But  the  use,  which  he  made  of  his  materials,  was 
not  such,  as  might  have  been  expected  from  a  man  of 
Beza's  learning.  Instead  of  applying  his  various 
readings  to  the  emendation  of  the  text,  he  used  them 
chiefly  for  polemical  purposes  in  his  notes.  In  short 
he  amended  Stephens's  text,  in  not  more  than  fifty 
places :  and  even  these  emendations  were  not  always 
founded  on  proper  authority. 

We  now  come  to  the  Elzevir  edition  of  1624,  in 


109  LECTURE  VI. 

which  was  established  the  text,  that  is  now  in  daily 
use.  The  person  who  conducted  this  edition  (for  El- 
zevir was  only  the  printer)  is  at  present  unknown : 
but  whoever  he  was,  his  critical  exertions  were  con- 
fined within  a  narrow  compass.  The  text  of  this  edi- 
tion was  copied  from  Beza's  text,  except  in  about  fif- 
ty places ;  and  in  these  places,  the  readings  were  bor- 
rowed partly  from  the  various  readings  in  Stephens's 
margin,  partly  from  other  editions,  but  certainly  not 
from  Greek  manuscripts. 

The  texfus  receptus  therefore,  or  the  text  in  com- 
mon use,  was  copied,  with  a  few  exceptions,  from  the 
text  of  Beza.  Beza  himself  closely  followed  Ste- 
phens :  and  Stephens  (namely  in  his  third  and  chief 
edition)  copied  solely  from  the  fifth  edition  of  Eras- 
mus, except  in  the  Revelation,  v/here  he  followed 
sometimes  Erasmus,  sometimes  the  Complutensian 
edition.  The  text  therefore  in  daily  use  resolves  it- 
self at  last  into  the  Complutensian  and  the  Erasmian 
editions.  Bat  neither  Erasmus  nor  the  Compluten- 
sian editors  printed  from  ancient  Greek  manuscripts : 
and  the  remainder  of  their  critical  apparatus  included 
little  more  than  the  latest  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and 
the  Latin  Vulgate. 

I  have  thus  finished  the  first  period  in  the  critical 
history  of  the  Greek  text.  The  time  docs  not  permit 
us  to  enter  on  the  second.  But  as  almost  a  year  will 
elapse  before  these  Lectures  will  be  renewed,  as  in 
this  audience  there  may  be  many,  who  will  lose  the 
opportunity  of  farther  attendance,  and  as  the  Lecturer 


LECTURE  VI.  109 

himself  from  the  daily  accidents  of  human  life  may 
not  live  to  renew  them,  it  is  proper,  before  we  sepa- 
rate, to  make  some  general  observations,  not  only  on 
the  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  has  been 
left  unfinished,  but  also  on  some  other  branches  of 
Divinity  on  which,  though  the  description  of  them  is 
still  to  come,  the  theological  student  should  have  sorr.e 
decided  opinion  before  he  departs. 

With  respect  to  the  labours  of  the  learned,  which 
belong  to  the  second  period  in  the  critical  history  of 
the  Greek  text,  it  has  been  their  object  to  obtain  a 
copy  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  shall  come  as 
nearly,  as  possible,  to  the  original  records.  Now,  if 
it  is  thought  desirable  to  obtain  an  accurate  text  for 
the  Plays  of  Terence  or  the  Odes  of  Horace,  and  the 
prosecution  of  this  purpose  be  deemed  an  object  for 
the  talents  of  a  Bentley,  surely  the  smallest  emenda- 
tion must  be  deemed  important  in  that  work,  which  is 
the  source  of  religious  faith.  And  be  it  observed, 
that  no  emendation  from  conjecture,  no  emendation 
unfounded  on  documents,  or  not  warranted  by  prepon- 
derating authority  is  admissible  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. It  is  true,  that  the  various  readings,  which  af- 
fect the  sense,  bear  but  a  small  proportion  to  the 
whole  number :  but  who  would  not  choose  to  read  a 
Gospel  or  an  Epistle  rather  in  originaly  than  in  synon- 
Tjmous  expressions. 

On  the  other  hand,  care  must  be  taken  not  to 
magnify  this  subject  beyond  the  limits  of  its  real  im- 
portance. To  the  Theologian,  who  undertakes  to  es- 
tablish the  authenticity  of  the  Greek  Testament,  it  is 
of  consequence  to  ascertain  its  very  words,  its  very 


110  LECTURE  VI. 

syllables.  But,  for  tlie  common  purposes  of  religious 
instruction,  the  text  in  daily  use  is  amply  sufficient. 
For,  whatever  difference  in  other  respects  may  exist 
between  this  text  and  the  Greek  manuscripts,  or 
whatever  diiference  may  exist  among  the  manuscripts 
themselves,  they  all  agree  in  the  important  articles  of 
Christian  feith  ;  they  all  declare,  with  one  accord,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment,by  Jesus  Christ. 

On  three  other  brandies  of  Divinity,  the  Authen- 
ticity of  the  Bible,  the  Divine  Origin  of  our  Religion, 
and  the  Doctrines  of  the  Church  of  England,  I  must 
likewise  make  some  general  observations. 

As  it  is  the  object  of  these  Lectures,  to  exhibit  a 
system  of  Divinity,  which  beginning  with  first  princi- 
ples shall  establish  propositions  in  regular  progression, 
it  would  be  a  violation  of  their  plan  to  anticipate  sub- 
jects of  future  demonstration,  because  such  anticipa- 
tion would  involve  our  arguments  in  a  circle.  Nor  is 
it  my  intention  to  anticipate  any  truth,  for  the  purpose 
of  employing  it  in  proof  of  another.  But  the  plan 
will  not  be  violated,  if  to  those,  who  will  lose  the  op- 
portunity, either  of  hearing  the  arguments  themselves, 
or  of  learning  what  authors  have  best  conducted  them, 
I  should  briefly  state  the  result. 

I  may  venture  therefore  to  assert,  that  the  evi- 
dence, by  which  we  establish  the  fact,  that  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  were  written  by  the  authors  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed,  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  as 
strong,  as  the  evidence  for  the  facts,  that  the  Orations 
against  Catiline  v/ere  WTitten  by  Cicero,  or  that  the 
Life  of  Agricola  was  written  by  Tacitus.     That  Mo- 


LECTURE  n.  Ill 

scs  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  I  have  already 
shewn  in  a  separate  publication  ;  nor  is  it  less  certain, 
that  the  prophetical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
written  by  the  persons,  whose  names  they  bear.  Some 
books  indeed  there  are,  such  as  the  Kings  and  the 
Chronicles,  of  which  we  know  not  the  authors.  But, 
if  they  had  not  been  entided  to  credit,  they  would  not 
have  been  received  in  the  Hebrew  Canon :  nor  would 
that  Canon  have  been  confirmed  by  the  authority  of 
Christ. 

That  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  consid- 
ered merely  as  human  evidence,  as  they  must  be  con- 
sidered in  the  first  instance,  are  entitled  to  full  credit 
for  all  that  they  have  recorded  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles, appears  from  the  records  themselves.  The  sim- 
plicity of  the  writers,  their  manifest  honesty,  their  own 
conviction,  where  they  could  not  be  deceived,  and 
their  sufierings,  even  unto  death,  in  support  of  that 
conviction,  guarantee  the  veracity  of  their  accounts. 
And  if  the  miracles  and  doctrines  recorded  in  the 
New  Testam.ent  be  true,  the  divine  origin  of  Christi- 
anity requires  no  further  confirmation. 

With  respect  to  that  system  of  doctrines,  which  is 
adopted  by  the  Church  of  England,  I  must  here  again 
appeal  to  the  proofs  hereafter  to  be  given,  and  again 
state  the  result.  On  the  strength  of  this  appeal  then 
I  can  venture  to  assert,  that  when  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  of  f'.ngland,  as  taught  in  the  Liturgy,  the  Ar- 
ticles, and  the  Homilies,  are  duly  examined,  they  wUl 
be  found  in  all  respects  conformable  with  the  Sacred 
Writings.  To  dissent  therefore,  in  this  country, 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  Established  Church,  is  to 


lis  LECTURE  VI. 

dissent  without  a  real  cause.  Indeed  there  are  many, 
who  dissent  without  knowing  the  difference  between 
our  doctrines  and  their  own,  nay  without  knowing 
whether  the  doctrines  be  different,  or  the  same.  But 
this  dissent  is  dangerous  in  every  view.  It  is  dan- 
gerous to  the  person,  who  adopts  false  notions  in  re- 
ligion, it  is  dangerous  to  his  neighbour,  it  is  danger- 
ous to  the  State.  The  religious  dissensions  in  the 
Greek  Empire,  by  diminishing  its  strength,  prepared 
its  downfall  by  the  Turks  :  and  God  grant,  that  the 
religious  dissensions  among  ourselves,  which  unavoid- 
ably produce  dissensions  in  the  State,  may  not  ulti- 
mately effect  the  downfall  of  Britain. 

Lastly,  as  knowledge  is  of  no  value,  unless  it  be 
applied  to  some  useful  purpose,  let  us  apply  our  knowl- 
edge of  religion  to  the  amendment  of  our  thoughts 
and  actions.  May  those  who  are  placed  in  authority 
be  careful  to  set  a  good  example ;  and  may  the  young- 
er members  be  as  careful  to  follow  it.  In  tliis  place 
especially,  two  of  our  principal  duties  are,  attention  to 
study,  and  regularity  of  deportment.  Let  us  all  then 
resolve,  both  young  and  old,  to  observe  particularly 
the  duties,  which  immediately  belong  to  us,  that  our 
faith,  and  our  preaching  may  not  be  vain.  So  shall 
'we  all  become  one  fold  under  one  Shepherd,  Jesus 
Christ,  the  righteous,  to  whom  with  the  Father  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  be  ascribed  all  power,  might,  majes- 
ty, and  dominion,  now  and  forevermore. 


COUKSE  OF  LECTURES. 


CONTAINING  A 


DESCRIPTION  AND   SYSTEMATIC   ARRANGEMENT 


OF   THE   SEVERAL 

BRANCHES  OF  DIVINITY : 

ACCOMPANIED  WITH 

AN    ACCOUNT,    BOTH  OF    THE    PRINCIPAL    AUTHORS,    AND    OF         ^ 
THE    PPOGRESS,    WHICH    HAS    BEEN    MADE    AT 
DIFFERENT  PERIODS 


XIjeoICEgical  ^Learning* 

BY  HERBERT  MARSH,  D.  D.  F.  R.  S. 

MAEGARET   PROFESSOR   OF   DIVINITY. 

PART  II. 
CAMBRIDGE : 

PUBLISHED    BY    WILLIAM    IIILLIARD. 


Hllliard  &  Metcalf.... printers. 
1812. 


1 


PREFACE. 


In  the  six  following  Lectures,  which  were  given  in  the 
Easter  Term  of  1810,*  the  first  branch  of  Theology,  or  the 
criticism  of  the  Bible,  is  continued  and  concluded.  It  is  hard- 
ly necessary  to  say  any  thing  further  of  the  plan,  on  which 
these  Lectures  are  conducted,  as  it  was  fully  explained  in  th© 
first  and  second  Lectures.  It  may  be  useful  however  to  re- 
mind the  reader,  that  their  object  is  not  to  supersede  the  study 
of  other  works,  but  to  direct  the  theological  student  in  the  iise 
of  other  works.  Their  object  is  to  teach  him  how  to  study 
Divinity,  and  then,  as  he  gradually  proceeds,  to  inform  him 
of  the  most  distinguished  writers  on  the  several  subjects.  In 
the  arrangement  of  those  writers  no  attention  is  paid  either  to 
the  alphabetical  order  of  their  names,  or  to  the  size  of  their 
works.  Their  position  is  regulattsd  solely  by  a  regard  to  the 
departments,  and  divisions  of  departments,  to  which  the  wri- 
ters respectively  belong.  The  arrangement  therefore  is  pure- 
ly systematic.  Whether  the  system  itself  is  founded  on  just 
principles,  is  a  question  which  must  be  left  to  the  decision  of 
the  learned. 

*  I  must  except  however  Lecture  XII,  which,  though  here  printed, 

was  not  spoken  with  the  other  five.  Indeed  the  title-pages  of  books, 
with  which  it  is  replete,  make  it  rather  a  subject  of  examinatioa  in  the 
closet,  than  of  delivery  to  a  public  audience. 

Camhridge^ 
J)ec.  15,  1810. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  VII. 

Page 

Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament  from  the  formation  of 
the  Textus  lieeeptus  to  the  Ediiioii  cf  TFdstein        -        5 

LECTURE  Vm. 

TJie  same  Subjeci  ccntinued  to  the  Edition  of  Grleshach         29 

LECTURE  IX. 

Description  of  the  Jluthors,  who  have  illustrated  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Greek  Testament  according  to  its  several 
Depariments         -         --.---43 

LECJTUTIE  X. 

Criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Bible        -        -        -        -      -       64r 

LECTURE  XL 

Tlie  same  Subject  continued  to  Kennicott^s  Edition^       -        89 

LECTURE  XIL 

Description  of  the  Authors,  who  have  illustrated  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Hebreiv  Bible,  according  to  its  several  De- 
partments       --__.-.        -97 


LECTURE  VII, 


1  HE  Lectures,  which  were  given  in  the  preced- 
ing Easter-term,  contained  a  plan  of  theological  study, 
in  which  the  several  branches  were  so  arranged,  that 
a  knowledge  of  the  one  should  gradually  lead  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  other.  To  recapitulate  those 
branches  would  be  unnecessary  at  present,  as  the 
Lectures  themselves  are  now  in  print,  and  were  in- 
deed published  especially  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
those,  who  have  lately  entered  on  their  academical 
studies,  to  make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  sub- 
jects already  explained.  Taking  therefore  for  grant- 
ed, that  every  one,  who  is  desirous  of  following  the 
whole  chain  of  argument,  and  of  comprehending  the 
whole  series  of  propositions,  has  duly  informed  him- 
self of  what  has  gone  before,  I  shall  resume,  without 
further  preface,  the  thread  of  the  discourse  in  the 
place,  where  it  vv  as  broken  oft'  in  the  last  Lecture. 

The  History  of  the  Criticism  employed  on  the 
Greek  Testament,  which  was  divided  into  two  peri- 
ods, the  one  ending  with  the  year  1624,  the  other 
continuing  from  that  time  to  the  present  day,  was  cou- 
2 


6  LECTURE  VII. 

ducted  only  to  the  end  of  the  former  period,  when  the 
text  of  the  Greek  Testament  acquired,  in  the  first  El- 
zevir edition,  a  consistency,  which  it  has  in  general 
preserved.  That  is,  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment printed  since  the  year  1624  have,  with  a  few  ex- 
ceptions hereafter  to  be  mentioned,  been  copied  word 
for  word  from  the  Elzevir  edition  of  that  year :  whence 
the  text  of  that  edition  has  acquired  the  title  of  textus 
receptus. 

The  gradual  formation  of  this  text  out  of  the  pri- 
mary editions  by  Erasmus  and  the  Complutensian  ed- 
itors, with  the  stages,  through  which  it  passed  before 
its  final  settlement,  was  sufficiently  described  in  the 
fifth  and  sixth  Lectures  to  enable  the  hearer  to  form  a 
competent  judgment,  in  regard  to  its  critical  correct- 
ness, or,  in  other  words,  in  regard  to  the  question, 
whether  it  approaches  as  nearly  to  the  autographs  of 
the  sacred  writers,  as  we  are  able,  and  therefore  in 
duty  bound  to  advance  it.  Now  the  further  we  pro- 
ceed, the  more  clearly  shall  we  perceive  the  necessity 
of  greater  improvement ;  and  the  history  of  the  latter 
period,  on  which  we  now  enter,  will  fully  confirm  the  | 
inference  deduced  from  the  history  of  the  former. 

The  subject,  which  demands  our  first  attention  in 
the  history  of  the  latter  period,  is  the  celebrated  Lon- 
don Polyglot,  a  work,  which  confers  immortal  honour, 
as  well  on  the  nation  at  large,  as  on  the  learned  men 
who  were  engaged  in  it ;  whose  merit  indeed  is  the 
more  conspicuous,  as  it  was  undertaken  and  complet- 
ed at  a  time,  when  the  study  of  theology  in  this  coun- 
try was  immersed  in  the  metaphysical  depths  of  puri- 


LECTURE  VII.  7 

tanical  disquisition.  It  was  projected,  and  with  the 
assistance  of  several  other  distinguished  scholars,  was 
executed  by  Brian  Walton,  formerly  of  Peter-House 
in  this  University.  It  consists  of  six  folio  volumes  : 
and  the  printing  of  them  was  finished  in  the  year  be- 
fore Cromwell  died. 

As  an  appendage,  was  added  in  two  more  folio 
volumes  that  inestimable  work,  the  Lexicon  Hepta- 
glotton^  by  Edmund  Castle  of  Emmanuel  College, 
Arabic  Professor  in  this  University,  and  Walton's 
chief  assistant  in  the  Polyglot  itself.  As  a  general 
description  of  this  splendid  performance  would  be  for- 
eign to  the  present  Lecture,  I  must  refer  my  hearers, 
who  wish  for  further  information,  as  well  on  the  Lon- 
don Polyglot,  as  on  the  Antwerp  and  Paris  Polyglots 
which  preceded  it,  to  the  Bibliotheca  sacra  of  Le  Long. 
We  are  at  present  concerned  only  with  the  text  of  the 
Greek  Testam.ent,  and  with  the  critical  apparatus, 
which  accompanied  that  text.  Now  the  text  itself, 
(which  is  contained  in  the  fifth  volume)  is  a  re-impres- 
sion of  the  folio  edition  by  Robert  Stephens,  which 
Walton  adopted  in  preference  to  the  Elzevir  text,  be- 
cause he  embodied  in  his  own  work  the  various  read- 
ings in  Stephens's  margin,  which  being  adapted  to 
Stephens's  text  might  often  be  no  various  readings  to 
any  other.  The  importance  therefore  of  the  London 
Polyglot,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  our  present  history,  is 
confined  to  the  materials^  which  it  afforded  for  the  pur- 
pose of  future  emendation. 

The  materials  derived  from  Greek  authorities 
comprise  a  collection  of  extracts  from  sixteen  Greek 


8  LECTURE  VII. 

manuscripts,  in  addition  to  the  readings  which  had 
been  quoted  by  Stephens.  For  the  collation  of  these 
manuscripts,  as  also  on  many  other  accounts,  Walton 
was  greatly  indebted  to  Archbishop  Usher.  They 
are  described  at  the  head  of  the  collation  in  the  sixth 
volume  by  Walton  himself:  and  a  further  account  of 
them  is  given  in  the  Prolegomena  to  Mill's  Greek 
Testament. 

But  the  extracts  from  Greek  Manuscripts  were 
neither  the  sole  nor  the  chief  materials,  which  the  Po- 
lyglot afforded  for  the  emendation  of  the  Greek  text. 
We  have  already  seen,  that  the  a?tcie?it  versions  of  the 
New  Testament  are  another  source  of  various  read- 
ings :  and  this  source  was  opened  more  amply  and 
more  usefully  in  the  London  Polyglot,  than  in  any  of 
those,  which  had  preceded.  In  addition  to  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  it  contains  the  Syriac,  the  Arabic,  and  the 
Ethiopic  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
Persian  in  the  Gospels.  And  these  oriental  versions 
are  not  only  arranged  in  the  most  convenient  manner, 
for  the  purpose  of  comparing  them  with  the  Greek, 
but  they  are  accompanied  with  literal  Latin  transla- 
tions, that  even  they,  who  are  unacquainted  with  the 
oriental  languages,  might  still  have  recourse  to  them 
for  various  readings,  though  indeed  with  less  securi- 
ty, as  every  translator  is  liable  to  make  mistakes.  For 
a  more  particular  account  of  those  oriental  versions, 
and  for  the  mode  of  applying  them  to  the  criticism  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  I  must  refer  my  hearers  to  the 
Introduction  of  MichAclis,  where  the  subject  is  treat- 
ed with  equal  fulness  and  perspicuity. 


LECTURE  VII.  9 

As  the  temper  of  the  times,  in  which  the  Polyglot 
appeared,  was  ill-adapted  to  calm  investigation,  we 
need  not  be  surprised  that  it  met  with  a  partial  oppo- 
sition. Dr.  John  Owen,  one  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed among  the  puritanical  Divines  under  the  govern- 
ment of  Cromwell,  soon  attacked  it  in  his  "  Consider- 
ations on  the  Prolegomena  and  Appendix  of  the  late 
Biblia  Polyglotta,"  which^he  gave  as  an  addition  to 
two  other  tracts  printed  at  Oxford  in  1659.  In  the 
same  year  it  was  answered  by  Walton  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  "  The  Considerator  considered ;  or  a  brief 
View  of  certain  Considerations  upon  the  Biblia  Polyg- 
lotta, the  Prolegomena  and  the  Appendix  thereof, 
wherein  amongst  other  things  the  certainty,  integrity, 
and  divine  authority  of  the  original  texts  is  defended 
against  the  consequences  of  Atheists,  Papists,  Anti- 
scripturists,  &c.  inferred,  from  the  various  readings, 
and  novelty  of  the  Hebrew  points,  by  the  author  of 
the  said  Considerations."  The  Restoration,  which 
soon  followed,  put  an  end  to  the  controversy ;  and 
within  a  few  months  after  Charles  the  Second's  return. 
Dr.  Walton  was  promoted  to  the  see  of  Chester.  The 
prejudices,  excited  by  Owen's  pamphlet,  and  the  false 
conclusions,  which  he  drew  from  that  variety  of  read- 
ings unavoidably  resulting  from  a  multiplication  of 
copies,  did  not  indeed  immediately  subside :  but  those 
prejudices  and  apprehensions  were  at  least  mitigated 
by  the  endeavours  of  Dr.  Fell,  who  published,  as  he 
relates  in  his  Preface,  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment for  that  purpose. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  Dr.  Fell's  e(Jition,  the 


10  LECTURE  ^^I. 

order  of  time  requires  that  we  should  notice  a  critical 
edition,  which  was  published  at  Amsterdam  in  the 
year  after  the  London  Polyglot.  It  is  known  by  the 
name  of  the  edition  of  Curccllseus,  and  is  one  of  the 
most  beautiful,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  correctly 
printed,  among  the  small  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. The  editor  does  not  appear,  when  the  work  • 
was  printed,  to  have  seen  the  London  Polyglot.  In- 
deed it  is  hardly  possible  that  he  should :  for  though 
this  edition  bears  the  date  of  1658,  and  the  Polyglot 
that  of  1657,  yet,  as  the  Preface,  which  is  always  the 
last  thing  printed,  is  dated  the  eighth  of  January,  the 
work  itself  must  have  been  printed  in  the  year  preced- 
ing. It  contains  however  a  selection  of  readings  suf- 
ficiently copious  for  the  time  and  circumstances  of  the 
publication,  a  selection  derived  partly  from  former 
collections,  partly  from  printed  editions,  and  partly 
from  manuscripts  collated  on  purpose  for  the  edition 
in  question.  These  manuscripts  are  described  by  the 
editor  in  his  Preface,  which  on  other  accounts  de- 
serves our  attention,  especially  for  its  excellent  re- 
marks in  vindication  of  such  iiterar}''  labours.  It  is 
one  of  the  Elzevir  editions,  and  contains  precisely  the 
same  text,  as  the  other  editions,  which  issued  from 
that  press. 

The  edition  of  the  Greek  'l^estament,  which  was 
published  by  Dr.  Fell,  then  Dean  of  Christ  Church, 
and  shortly  afterwards  also  Bishop  of  Oxford,  was 
printed  in  1675  in  one  volume  octavo.  Dr.  Fell  of 
course  availed  himself  of  the  collections  already  form- 
ed, in  the  London  Polyglot,  and  the  edition  of  Curcel- 


LECTURE  Vn.  It 

Iffiiis ;  "which  he  augmented  by  the  addition  of  read- 
ings from  twelve  Bodleian,  four  Dublin,  and  two  Pa- 
ris manuscripts.  He  further  added  the  extracts  from 
twenty-two  Greek  manuscripts,  which  Caryophilus 
had  collated  at  Rome,  by  order  of  Pope  Urban  VIII, 
for  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  was  in- 
tended to  be,  but  never  was  published.  The  extracts 
however  were  printed  by  themselves,  and  in  sufficient 
time  to  enable  Dr.  Fell  to  apply  them  to  the  purpose 
of  his  own  edition.  He  likewise  added  various  read- 
ings from  manuscripts  of  the  Coptic  and  Gothic  ver- 
sions of  the  New  Testament,  which  were  supplied  by 
Dr.  Thomas  Marshall,  Rector  of  Lincoln  College. 
Dr.  Fell's  edition  therefore  cantained  a  more  ample 
apparatus,  than  any  preceding  edition  :  and  it  was  re- 
printed, twice  at  Leipzig,  and  once  at  Oxford,  the  last 
of  which  is  known  by  the  name  of  Gregory's  edition. 
But  Gregory's  edition,  though  of  greater  magnitude 
than  its  prototype,  contains  no  accession  of  critical 
materials. 

We  now  come  to  a  period  in  the  history  of  sacred 
criticism,  which  may  be  considered  as  the  commence- 
ment of  its  manhood.  Bishop  Fell,  notwithstanding 
the  superiority  of  his  own  edition,  was  so  sensible, 
that  much  more  remained  to  be  performed,  in  order 
to  obtain  a  genuine  text,  that  he  determined  to  pro- 
mote a  new  edition.  He  v;as  likewise  so  well  aware 
of  the  labour,  which  it  would  cost,  and  the  many 
years,  which  it  would  employ,  to  collect,  arrange,  and 
apply  the  materials,  which  he  perceived  were  wanting, 
that  he  deemed  his  own  life  insufficient  for  the  pur- 


IS  LECTURE  Vn. 

pose,  and  resolved  therefore  to  delegate  the  task  to 
some  biblical  scholar,  \vhose  age  might  afford  an  ex- 
pectation of  living  to  complete  it.  He  selected  for 
that  purpose  Dr.  John  Mill,  then  Fellow  of  Queen's 
College  in  Oxford,  and  afterwards  Principal  of  Ed- 
mund Hall.  The  history  of  this  edition  is  related  at 
large  by  Dr.  Mill  himself  in  his  Prolegomena.  The 
preparation  of  the  materials,  and  the  printing  of  the 
work,  employed  not  less  than  thirty  years.  It  was 
published  at  Oxford  in  1707  :  but  Dr.  Mill  survived 
the  publication  of  it  only  a  few  weeks. 

This  noble  edition  contained,  not  onlv  a  much 
larger  collection  of  readings  from  Greek  manuscripts, 
than  any  former  edition,  but  also  what  was  totally 
wanting  in  former  editions,  a  copious  collection  of 
quotations  from  the  New  Testament  in  the  writings  of 
the  Greek  Fathers,  which  are  of  great  importance,  es- 
pecially the  quotations  made  by  the  early  Fathers,  in 
ascertaining  the  authenticity  of  the  Greek  text.  The 
extracts  from  the  Coptic  and  the  Gothic  versions, 
which  appeared  in  Bishop  Fell's  edition,  were  revised 
and  augmented ;  and  the  various  readings,  both  of  the 
Vulgate,  and  of  the  oriental  versions,  were  selected 
from  the  London  Polyglot.  The  variations  observable 
in  the  early  printed  editions  were  likewise  noted.  But, 
with  all  this  critical  apparatus,  the  learned  editor  made 
no  alterations  in  the  text,  v\'hich  he  printed,  as  it  was 
given  in  the  London  Polyglot,  from  the  folio  edition 
of  Robert  Stephens.  He  left  to  future  critics  the  ap- 
plication of  the  materials  which  he  provided,  though 
he  frequently  delivered  his  own  opinion,  in  tlie  Prole- 
gomena, and'  in  the  Notes. 


LECTURE  VII.  IS 

We  are  greatly  indebted  to  Dr.  Mill  for  having 
supplied  us  with  such  ample  means  of  obtaining  a 
more  correct  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament.  But 
his  labours  were  .misunderstood  and  misrepresented 
by  his  contemporaries.  The  appearance  of  so  many 
thousand  various  readings  (they  are  said  to  amount  to 
thirty  thousand)  excited  an  alarm  for  the  safety  of  the 
New  Testament :  and  those  very  materials,  which 
had  been  collected  for  the  purpose  of  producing  a 
correct,  an  unadulterated  text,  were  regarded  as  the 
means  of  undermining  its  authority.  The  text  in 
daily  use,  originally  derived  from  modern  manuscripts,'^ 
and  transmitted  through  Stephens  and  Beza  into  the 
Elzevir  editions,  was  at  that  time  supposed  to  have 
already  attained  its  highest  perfection  ;  and  was  re- 
garded in  the  same  light,  as  if  Erasmus  had  printed 
from  the  autographs  of  the  sacred  writers.  The  pos- 
sibility of  mistakes  in  transcribing  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, the  consequent  necessity  of  making  the  copies 
of  it  subservient  to  mutual  correction,  and  hence  the 
inference,  that  the  probability  of  obtaining  an  accu- 
rate copy  is  increased  by  the  frequency  of  compari- 
son, did  not  occur  to  those,  who  were  offended  at  Dr. 
Mill's  publication.  They  were  not  aware,  that  the 
genuine  text  of  the  sacred  writers  could  not  exclusive- 
ly be  found  in  any  modern  manuscript,  from  which 
the  first  editor  of  a  Greek  Testament  might  accident- 
ally print :  they  were  not  aware  that  the  truth  lies 
scattered  among  them  all,  and  must  be  collected  from 
them  all.  Still  less  were  they  aware,  that  those  very 
readings,  which  excited  their  apprehensions,  werei  thQ 


14.  LECTURE  Vn. 

means,  not  only  of  ascertaining  the  genuineness  of 
words  and  phrases,  but  also,  as  will  be  shown  hereaf- 
ter, of  proving  the  authenticity  of  whole  books. 

Three  years  had  not  elapsed,  when  Dr.  Whitby, 
the  well-known  and  justly  esteemed  commentator  on 
the  New  Testament,  published  in  opposition  to  it,  an 
elaborate  work,  entitled  Examen  var'mntium  Lectio- 
num  Johannis  Miliii,  which  was  first  printed  in  Lon- 
don in  1710,  and  was  afterwards  annexed  to  Whit- 
by's Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  In  this 
Examen  the  author  argues,  as  if  every  printed  word 
"Vvere. precisely  the  same,  as  it  was  originally  written; 
he  asserts  that  in  a// places  the  reading  of  the  common 
text  may  be  defended,  in  lis  omnibus  lectionem  textus 
defendi  posse.  And  this  palpably  false  position,  set 
forth  in  the  title-page  itself,  he  made  the  basis  of  a  se- 
vere and  bitter  criticism  on  a  work,  which  he  was  un- 
able to  appreciate. 

The  well-meaning  but  ill-judged  remarks  of  Whit- 
by were  soon  applied  by  Anthony  Collins  in  his  Dis- 
course of  Free  Thinking,  to  a  very  different  purpose : 
for  he  quoted  the  Preface  to  Whitby's  Examen,  in 
order  to  shew,  that  the  very  text  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment was  uncertain  and  precarious.  But  the  argu- 
ments of  Collins  against  Divine  Revelation,  and  the 
mistaken  notions  of  Whitby,  on  which  those  argu- 
ments were  founded,  were  soon  confuted  by  the  most 
acute  critic,  not  only  of  this  nation,  but  of  all  Europe. 
I  mean  Dr.  Richard  Bentley,  who  replied  to  Collins 
under  the  assumed  title  of  Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis. 
This  reply  of  Bentley  was  first  printed  in  1713,  the 


LECTURE  VII.  15 

same  year  with  Coilins's  Discourse  :  it  has  frequent- 
ly been  reprinted  ;  it  has  been  translated  into  several 
of  the  foreign  languages,  and  should  be  studied  by 
every  man,  who  is  desirous  of  forming  just  notions  of 
biblical  criticism.  Indeed  Dr.  Francis  Hare,  after- 
wards Bishop  of  Chichester,  made  his  public  acknowl- 
edgments in  a  pamphlet  printed  in  the  same  year, 
entitled  "  The  Clergyman's  Thanks  to  Phileleuthe- 
rus." 

That  Dr.  Mill's  edition  however  had  its  defects, 
is  certainly  not  to  be  denied  :  but  they  were  chiefly 
defects,  which  were  inseparable  from  the  nature  of  the 
undertaking,  and  from  the  circumstances,  in  which 
the  editor  was  placed.  Among  the  manuscripts  col- 
lated for  Mill's  edition  were  many,  which  could  not 
be  collated  by  Mill  himself:  and  if  the  extracts  from 
such  manuscripts  are  any  where  defective  or  errone- 
ous, the  fault  is  not  the  editor's,  but  the  collator's. 
And  if  the  opinions,  which  he  has  frequently  expres- 
sed on  the  genuineness  of  readings,  are  sometimes  in- 
accurate, we  must  recollect,  that  he  was  the  first  edi- 
tor, who  undertook  a  critical  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament  on  so  large  a  scale.  And  if  those  opinions 
had  been  more  frequently  inaccurate  than  they  are,  we 
should  further  remember,  first,  that  he  produced  the 
evidence  on  which  those  opinions  were  founded,  thus 
enabling  the  reader  to  judge  for  himself,  and  secondly 
that  he  never  suffered  his  opinions  to  influence  the 
text.  The  gi-eatest  defect  in  Mill's  Greek  Testa- 
ment consists  in  the  quotations  from  the  oriental  ver- 
sions, which  Mill  did  not  understand,  at  least  not  suf- 


16  LECTURE  VII. 

ficiently  to  collate  them.  He  had  recourse  therefore  to 
the  Latin  translations  of  them  in  the  London  Polyglot, 
and  consequently  erred,  whenever  those  translations 
were  not  sufliciently  exact.  But  these  defects,  with 
the  similar  defects  in  the  edition  of  Bengelius,  hereaf- 
ter to  be  noticed,  have  been  all  corrected  by  Profes- 
sor Bode  of  Helmstadt,  in  his  work  rather  harshly  en- 
titled, Pseudo-cr'itlca  Millio-Bengeliaiia. 

Three  years  after  the  publication  of  Mill's  Greek 
Testament  at  Oxford,  it  was  reprinted  at  Amsterdam 
under  the  direction  of  Ludolph  Kiister.  Whatever 
readings  were  given  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Oxford 
edition,  as  coming  too  late  for  insertion  under  the 
text,  were  in  this  second  edition  transferred  to  their 
proper  places :  and  the  critical  apparatus  was  aug- 
mented by  the  readings  of  twelve  Greek  manuscripts, 
some  of  which  indeed  had  been  previously,  but  im- 
perfectly collated. 

In  the  year  following,  namely  in  1711,  Gerard  of 
Mastricht  published  (likewise  at  Amsterdam)  an  oc- 
tavo edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  with  readings 
selected,  not  from  Mill's,  but  from  Fell's  edition,  and 
a  small  accession  of  new  matter,  consisting  of  readings 
from  a  manuscript  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna. 
As  the  editor  gave  only  the  initials  of  his  name  and  ti- 
tle, and  the  edition  was  published  by  Henry  Wet- 
stein,  a  printer  and  bookseller  at  Amsterdam,  it  im- 
properly acquired  in  this  country  the  name  of  Wet- 
stein's  edition  :  and  hence  the  octavo  edition  by  Gerard 
of  Mastricht  is  sometimes  confounded  with  the  edi- 
tion of  Professor  John  James  Wetstein,  which  was 
published  forty  years  afterwards  in  two  volumes  folio. 


LECTURE  vn.  ir 

The  editions  hitherto  described  in  the  present 
Lecture  have  all  contributed  to  augment  the  stock  of 
materials  ;  but  they  left  the  text  itself  unaltered.  The 
first  editor,  who  applied  Mill's  critical  apparatus  to  the 
emendation  of  the  Greek  text,  was  Dr.  Edward  Wells, 
Rector  of  Cotesbach  in  Leicestershire,  who  published 
an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  at  Oxford,  in  sep- 
arate portions,  and  at  different  times  between  1709 
and  1719.  It  is  accompanied  with  the  common  Eng- 
lish version,  corrected  according  to  the  Greek  read- 
ings preferred  by  the  editor.  It  is  further  accompani- 
ed with  a  paraphrase  and  annotations,  on  which  ac- 
count it  is  generally  classed,  not  among  the  editions 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  but  among  the  commenta- 
ries on  it:  and  in  this  view  I  shall  have  occasion 
to  speak  of  it,  in  the  second  branch  of  Theology,  as  a 
very  useful  work.  But  as  it  exhibits  a  corrected  text 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  it  claims  also  a  place  in  the 
present  description,  though  subsequent  improvements 
in  sacred  criticism  have  in  a  great  measure  supersed- 
ed the  emendations  of  Dr.  Wells. 

In  1729  was  printed  in  London  another  edition  of 
tlie  Greek  Testament,  with  a  new  text,  and  an  Eng- 
lish translation,  in  which  the  editor  professed  to  have 
founded  his  alterations  on  the  authority  of  Greek  man- 
uscripts. It  was  soon  discovered  that  those  profes- 
sions were  false  ;  and  the  edition  has  been  long  con- 
signed to  merited  oblivion. 

But  in  1734  a  very  respectable  attempt  to  improve 
the  sacred  text  was  made  by  Bengel,  or,  as  he  is  com- 
monly called  in  England,  Bengelius,  Professor  at  the 


18  LECTURE  VII. 

University  of  Tubingen  in  Suabia.  In  that  5^ear  he 
published  a  quarto  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
to  which  he  prefixed  an  Introductio  in  Crisin  Novi 
Testamenti,  and  subjoined  an  Apparatus  crificus.  But 
the  prejudices  of  that  age  in  respect  to  sacred  criti- 
cism, cf  which  we  have  seen  an  instance  in  Whitby's 
Examen,  restricted  Bengelius  in  the  exercise  of  his 
judgment,  and  imposed  on  him  a  law,  which  defeat- 
ed iu  numerous  instances  the  very  object  of  his  revi- 
sion. If  the  best  Greek  manuscripts,  with  the  most 
ancient  Fathers  and  Versions,  agree  in  supporting  any 
particular  reading,  we  must  conclude  that  it  is  the  gen- 
uine reading,  whether  that  reading  were  contained,  or 
not,  in  the  manuscripts  of  Erasmus  or  the  Complu- 
tensian  editors,  whether  that  reading  were  contained, 
or  not,  either  in  their  editions,  or  in  any  which  suc- 
ceeded them.  But  such  was  the  importance,  which  a 
reading  was  then  supposed  to  derive  from  having  been 
once  in  print,  and  so  necessary  did  this  stamp  of  au- 
thority appear,  in  order  to  legalise  its  claim  to  admis- 
sion, that  no  reading  was  adopted  by  Bengelius,  how- 
ever great  its  critical  authorit}^,  unless  it  had  already 
received  the  sanction  of  the  press.  He  himself  says, 
*'  j\e  syllabam  quidem^  etiamsi  mille  inanuscripti,  mille 
critici  jiiberent^  antehac  non  receptam,  adducar  ut  re- 
cipiam.'*'*  But  when  he  came  to  the  Apocalypse,  he 
departed  from  this  rule :  and  in  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament  he  endeavoured  to  make  com- 
pensation by  placing  under  the  text -the  readings, 
which  he  thought  the  most  worthy  of  notice,  and  clas- 
sing them  accordijig  to  their  value  by  the  means  of 


LECTURE  Vn.  i« 

Greek  numerals.  With  respect  to  his  critical  appa- 
ratus, it  was  chiefly  taken  from  Mill's  Greek  Testa- 
ment, to  which  however  he  made  some  important  ad- 
ditions, consisting  of  extracts  from  above  twenty 
<jreek  manuscripts,  and  from  sevenil  of  the  ancient 
Latin  versions,  to  which  were  added,  for  the  first  time 
in  this  edition,  some  extracts  from  the  Armenian  ver- 
sion. 

But  the  edition  of  Bengelius  was  shortly  supersed- 
ed by  the  more  important  edition  of  John  James 
Wetstein,  who  was  born  and  educated  in  the  place, 
where  Erasmus  had  published  his  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  In  his  twentieth  year,  while  a  stu- 
dent at  Basle,  he  published  a  treatise,  De  variis  Lee- 
tionibus  Novi  Testamenti :  and,  when  he  had  finished 
his  studies,  he  visited  the  principal  libraries  of  France- 
and  England,  in  search  of  Greek  manuscripts,  which 
he  every  where  collated  with  great  assiduity.  The 
fruits  of  his  researches,  containing  observations,  not 
only  on  Greek  manuscripts,  but  on  the  quotations  of 
the  Greek  Fathers,  and  on  the  ancient  versions,  were 
published  four  years  before  the  edition  of  Bengelius, 
being  printed  at  Amsterdam  in  1730,  by  the  title, 
Prolegomena  ad  Testamenti  Gr^eci  editionem  accura- 
tissimamy  e  vetussimis  codicibus  manuscriptis  denuo pro- 
curandam ;  in  quibus  agitur  de  codicibus  manuscriptis 
JVovi  Testamentiy  scriptoiibus  qui  Novo  Testamento  usi 
sunt^  versionibus  veteribusy  editiojiibus  prioribus,  et  da- 
rts interpretibus  ;  et  proponuntur  Animadversiones  et 
Cautiones,  ad  JExamen  variarum  Icctionum  A^'ovi  Tes- 
tamenti necessaria.     The  bare  recital  of  the  title-page 


20  LECTURE  VII. 

is  sufficient  to  shew  the  importance  of  the  subjects 
discussed,  and  to  indicate  the  expectations,  which 
were  excited  from  an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament 
thus  announced  by  an  author  so  distinguished,  as 
Wetstein,  by  his  learning  and  talents. 

But  the  edition  itself,  from  various  causes,  which 
it  is  here  unnecessary  to  relate,  was  retarded  more 
than  twenty  years.  It  was  at  length  published  in 
1751  and  1752,  in  two  folio  volumes,  at  Amsterdam, 
where  Wetstein  was  then  Professor  in  the  College  of 
the  Remonstrants.  It  is  divided  into  four  Parts,  the 
first  containing  the  Gospels,  the  second  containing  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  third  containing  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  with  the  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  fourth 
containing  the  Apocalypse.  Each  of  these  four  Parts 
is  accompanied  with  Prolegomena,  in  which  the  Greek 
manuscripts  are  described,  that  are  quoted  in  each 
Part :  and  Wetstein's  motive  to  this  four- fold  divi- 
sion was,  tl^t  it  corresponds  with  the  usual  contents 
of  the  Greek  manuscripts,  which  seldom  comprise  the 
whole  New  Testament,  but  contain,  some  of  them  the 
four  Gospels  only,  others  only  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
others  again  the  Acts  of  the  Aposdes  with  the  Catho- 
lic Epistles,  and  lastly,  others  the  Apocalypse  alone, 
though  two  or  more  of  these  portions  are  sometimes 
found  united  in  the  same  manuscript,  while  on  the 
other  hand  there  are  manuscripts,  in  which  the  por- 
tions are  still  smaller.  The  Prolegomena  to  the  first 
Part,  in  addition  to  the  description  of  Greek  manu- 
scripts, contain  an  account  of  the  ecclesiastical  wri- 
ters, and  of  the  ancient  versions,  which  are  quoted  in 


LECTURE  vn.  SI 

this  edition.  These  Prolegomena,  with  the  Animad' 
versiones  et  Caut'iones  at  the  end  of  the  second  volume, 
must  be  studied  by  every  man,  who  would  fully  ap- 
preciate the  work  in  question,  of  which  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  give  an  adequate  notion  in  the  compass  of  the 
present  Lecture. 

The  text  of  this  edition  is  precisely  the  same  with 
the  Elzevir  text,  and  hence  it  is  called  on  the  title- 
page  A'hvum  Testamentum  Gr^cum  editionis  recepta. 
Though  Wetstein  very  considerably  augmented  the 
stock  of  critical  materials,  though  he  drew  from  vari- 
ous sources,  which  had  hitherto  remained  unopened, 
though  he  collated,  not  by  other  hands,  but  by  his 
own,  and  though  few  men  have  possessed  a  greater 
share  either  of  learning  or  of  sagacity,  yet  no  alteration 
was  made  in  the  Greek  text.  He  proposed  indeed  al- 
terations, which  he  inserted  in  the  space  between  the 
text  and  the  body  of  various  readings,  with  reference 
to  the  words  which  he  thought  should  be  exchanged 
for  them :  and  where  a  reading  should,  in  his  opinion, 
l^e  omitted  without  the  substitution  of  another,  he 
prefixed  to  it  a  mark  of  mi?uis  in  the  text.  But  these 
proposed  alterations  and  omissions  are  in  general  sup- 
ported by  powerful  authority,  and  are  such,  as  will 
commonly  recommended  themselves  to  an  impartial 
critic.  Though  among  the  various  readings  he  has 
occasionally  noted  the  conjectures  of  others,  he  has 
never  ventured  a  conjecture  of  his  own :  nor  has  he 
made  conjecture  in  any  one  instance  the  basis  of  a 
proposed  alteration. 

The  charge   therefore,  which  has  been  laid  to 


fm  LECTURE  vn. 

Wetstein,  of  proposing  (not  makin,^)  alterations  in  the 
text  for  the  mere  puqDose  of  obtaining  support  to  a 
particular  creed,  is  without  foundation.  Whether  an 
editor  is  attached  or  not  to  the  creed  of  his  country, 
whether  he  receives  pain  or  pleasure,  when  he  discov- 
ers that  a  reading  of  the  text  is  supported  by  less  au- 
thority than  a  various  reading,  are  questions,  with 
which  the  reader  is  only  so  far  concerned,  as  they 
may  affect  the  conduct  of  the  editor  in  his  office  ofcrit' 
ic.  The  question  of  j'eal  importance  is.  Does  the  ed- 
itor, whether  orthodox  or  heterodox,  suffer  his  relig- 
ious opinions  to  influence  his  judgment,  in  weighing 
the  evidence  for  and  against  any  particular  word  or 
passage.  Now  men  of  everi/  religious  profession  are 
exposed  to  the  temptation  of  adopting  what  they  wish 
to  adopt,  and  of  rejecting  what  they  wish  to  reject, 
without  sufficient  regard  to  the  evidence  against  the 
one,  and  in  favour  of  the  other.  Hence  greater  cau- 
tion is  certainly  requisite  in  our  admission  of  emen- 
dations, which  favour  the  editor's  religious  creed,  than 
in  the  admission  of  readings  unconnected  with  that 
creed.  That  is,  VvC  must  be  more  careful  to  scrutin- 
ize, whether  such  emendations  are  really  supported 
by  greater  authority,  than  the  readings,  which  it  is 
proposed  to  reject.  But  then  we  must  endeavour  in 
this  investigation  to  abstain,  on  our  parts,  from  the 
fault,  which  we  suspect  in  the  editor.  We  must  not 
suffer  a  bias  in  an  opposite  direction  to  mislead  our 
awn  judgment,  to  magnify  or  diminish  authorities,  as 
they  are  favourable  or  unfavourable  to  the  readings, 
which  we  ourselves  would  adopt.     Now  I  have  been 


^LECTURE  VII.  S3 

long  in  the  habit  of  using  Wetstein's  Greek  Testa- 
ment; I  have  at  least  endeavoured  to  weigh  carefully 
the  evidence  for  the  readings,  which  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  examine  ;  yet  I  have  always  found  that  the  al- 
terations proposed  by  Wetstein  were  supported  by 
respectable  authority,  and  in  general  by  much  better 
authority,  than  the  correspondent  readings  of  the  text. 
The  merits  therefore  of  W^etstein,  as  a  critic^  ought 
not  to  be  impeached  by  ascribing  to  him  undue  influ- 
ence in  the  choice  of  his  readings.  His  merits,  as  a 
critic,  undoubtedly  surpass  the  merits  of  his  prede- 
cessors :  he  alone  contributed  more  to  advance  the 
criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,  than  all  who  had 
gone  before  him  :  and  this  task  he  performed,  not  on- 
ly without  support,  either  public  or  private,  but  dur- 
ing a  series  of  severe  trials,  under  which  a  mind  of 
less  energy  than  Wetstein's  would  infallibly  have 
sunk.  In  short,  he  gave  a  new  turn  to  the  criticism 
of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  laid  the  foundation,  on 
which  later  editors  have  built.  That  mistakes  and 
T  oversights  are  discoverable  in  the  work  detracts  not 
from  its  general  merits.  No  work  is  without  them  : 
and  least  of  all  can  consummate  accuracy  be  expected, 
where  so  many  causes  of  error  never  ceased  to  ope- 
rate.  Such  are  Wetstein's  merits  as  a  m^zV.     As 

an  interpreter  of  the  New  Testament,  in  his  explana- 
tory Notes,  he  shews  himself  in  a  different  and  less  fa- 
vourable light :  but  this  subject  must  be  deferred  till 
we  come  to  the  second  Branch  of  Theology. 

The  emendations,  which  Wetstein  had  proposed^ 
were  adopted  by  Mr,  Bowyer,  a  learned  printer  in 


S*  LECTURE  VII. 

London,  who  inserted  them  in  the  text  of  his  edition 
pubhshed  eleven  years  afterwards.  And  as  these 
emendations  were  founded  on  the  authority  of  Greek 
manuscripts,  Mr.  Bowyer  gave  to  his  edition  the  fol- 
lowing title,  Novum  Testamentum  Gracu7n,  ad  Jidem 
Grcecorum  solum  Codicum  Manuscriptorum  nunc  pru 
mum  expressum,  adstipulante  Johanne  Jacobo  JVetste- 
nioy  ^c. 

The  history  of  our  second  period  has  now  been 
conducted  to  the  year  1763.  The  remaining  and 
most  important  part  of  it  will  be  given  in  the  next 
Lecture. 


LE  CTURE  VIII. 


The  preceding  Lecture  having  concluded  with 
the  account  of  Wctstein's  emendations  adopted  in 
Bowyer's  edition,  our  attention  must  now  be  directed 
to  the  literary  labours  of  Dr.  Griesbach,  Professor  of 
Divinity  at  Jena  in  Saxony.  The  first  display  of  his 
critical  ability  was  made  in  a  short  treatise  on  the 
manuscripts  of  the  four  Gospels,  which  were  used  by 
Origen,  entitled,  De  Codicibus  quatuor  Evangeliorum 
OrigenianiSj  published  in  1771  at  Halle  in  Saxony, 
where  Griesbach  had  studied,  and  where  he  afterwards 
published  his  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 

In  1774  he  published  a  Synopsis,  or  Harmony  of 
the  three  first  Gospels,  with  an  amended  text,  and  a 
selection  of  various  readings ;  to  which  were  added, 
likewise  with  an  amended  text  and  a  selection  of  read- 
ings, the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles. In  the  year  following  he  published  in  the  same 
manner,  the  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse.  And,  as 
the  Synopsis,  though  in  itself  a  very  useful  work,  and 
deservedly  re-pubUshed,  yet  formed  a  contrast  with 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  he  printed  in 


36  .       LECTURE  Vm.     . 

1777  the  three  first  Gospels  entire.  Such  were  the 
component  parts  of  wliat  is  called  Griesbach's  first 
editic  of  the  Greek  Testament,  of  which  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  give  a  short  account,  though  our  examina- 
tion of  Griesbach's  merits  as  a  critical  editor,  must  be 
reserved  for  the  description  of  his  second  and  more 
important  edition. 

It  may  be  useful  however  to  observe  that  .Gries- 
bach's object  was  not  to  supersede  tlie  edition  of 
Wetstein,  which  in  many  respects  retains  its  original 
value.  But  as  the  purchase  of  two  folio  volumes, 
which  were  daily  growing  scarcer  and  dearer,  was  im- 
practicable for  students  in  general,  who  yet  ought  to 
be  provided  with  soi'ne  means  of  information  on  the 
existing  state  of  the  Greek  text,  he  determined  ibr 
that  purpose  to  prepare  a  portable  edition,  which  might 
suit  the  convenieTice  of  every  reader.  In  the  critical 
apparatus  of  such  an  edition  could  be  expected  only  a 
selection  of  the  most  important  readings,  and  a  parties 
ular  citation  only  of  the  (?,^z<?/'authorities.  It  was  suf- 
ficient that  the  choice  was  made  with  judgment.  Both 
the  readings  and  the  authorities  were  selected  from 
Wetstein's  edition  :  but  they  were  revised  and  aug- 
mented by  subsequent  collations,  of  which  the  princi- 
pal were  supplied  l:y  Griesbach  himself.  And  as  the 
notion,  that  the  Elzevir  text  required  no  amendment, 
had  gradually  subsided  since  the  editions  of  Bengeli- 
us,  Wetstein,  and  Bowyer,  the  selection  of  various 
readings,  and  the  authorities,  on  which  they  were 
founded,  were  applied  b}'  Grics')ach  to  tiie  emenda- 
tion of  the  text.     With  w  hat  success  the  application 


LECTURE  VIII.  37 

has  been  made,  we  shall  consid-. r  hereafter,  when  we 
come  to  the  second  edition,  of  which  the  first  volume 
was  printed  after  an  interval  of  twentt/y  and  the  second 
after  an  interval  of  thirty  years. 

In  the  mean  time  the  stock  of  critical  materials 
was  very  considerably  augmented  by  the  editions  of 
Matthaei,  Alter,  and  Birch,  of  which  it  is  the  more 
necessary  to  give  some  account,  as  the  materials, 
which  they  provided,  were  all  transferred  into  Gries- 
bach's  second  edition. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  the  description  of  their 
editions,  the  order  of  time  requires  us  at  least  to  no- 
tice an  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  which,  though 
it  did  not  furnish  any  new  materials,  contained  a  new 
revision  of  the  text,  and  is  therefore  entitled  to  a  place 
in  the  present  history.  I  mean  the  edition  of  Dr.  Har- 
wood,  of  which  the  first  volume  was  published  in  1776, 
the  second  in  1784.  Now  this  learned  editor,  instead  of 
applying,  like  Wetstein,  Bowyer,  and  Griesbach,  the 
^t^/io/e  of  the  critical  apparatus  already  provided,  se- 
lected the  Codex  Bezse  as  his  chief  authority  in  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts,  and  the  Codex  Claromontanus 
in  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  But  no  single  manuscript, 
however  ancient  or  respectable,  can  determine  the 
question,  whether  a  reading  be  genuine  :  for  this  de- 
termination must  be  made  by  the  comparative  evidence 
of  all  our  authorities.  Dr.  Harwood's  revision  there- 
fore is  of  little  or  no  value. 

The  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  published 
by  Matthai,  who  was  Professor,  first  at  Moscow,  and 
afterwards  at  Wittenberg,   was  printed  at  Riga,  in 


28  LECTURE  VIII. 

twelve  octavo  volumes,  at  different  times  between 
1782  and  1788.  This  very  learned  editor,  who  was 
educated  at  Leipzig  under  the  celebrated  John  Au- 
gustus Ernesti,  commenced  his  work  under  various 
disadvantages,  which  had  material  influence  on  his 
formation  of  the  Greek  text.  When  invited  from 
Leipzig  to  Moscow  by  the  Empress  Catharine,  he  had 
not  directed  his  attention  to  the  peculiar  department 
of  sacred  criticism,  and  was  therefore  unacquainted 
with  the  progress,  which  had  been  made  in  this  branch 
of  learning.  And  when  the  numerous  manuscripts  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  which  he  found  at  Moscow, 
especially  in  the  library  of  the  Synod,  suggested  the 
thought  of  publishing  a  new  edition,  he  had  no  longer 
access  to  the  works,  which  might  have  furnished  the 
necessary  knowledge.  Neither  the  edition  of  Wet- 
stein,  nor  even  that  of  Mill  could  be  procured  in  his 
new  situation  :  and  the  only  collection  of  various 
readings  supplied  there  by  any  former  editor,  was  that 
of  Bishop  Fell,  as  reprinted  in  Gregory's  edition. 
When  he  attempted  therefore  emendations  in  the  re- 
ceived text,  his  emendations  were  chiefly  founded  on 
the  authority  of  the  manuscripts,  which  he  himself 
collated  at  Moscow. 

Now  the  Russian  Church  being  a  daughter  of  the 
Greek  Church,  the  Moscow  manuscripts  were  of 
course  collected  from  Constantinople,  and  other  parts 
of  the  Greek  empire.  They  belong  therefore  to  that 
particular  class,  which  modern  critics  have  called  the 
Byzantine  edition,  and  which  cannot  be  entitled  to  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  ascertaining  what  is  genuine  or 


LECTURE  Vm.  29 

spurious.  The  Greek  Fathers  who  lived  at  Alexan- 
dria, the  Greek  manuscripts  which  accord  with  their 
quotations,  and  those  ancient  versions  which  harmo- 
nize with  both,  have  at  least  an  equal  claim  to  our  at- 
tention. Nor  ought  we  to  decide  before  we  have 
heard  the  evidence  of  a  thi7'd  class  of  manuscripts, 
containing  the  Greek  text  accompanied  with  the  an- 
cient Latin  version.  The  application  therefore  of  the 
Moscow  manuscripts  a/owe,  after  Mill  and  Wetstein 
had  supplied  such  a  fund  of  materials  derived  from 
other  sources,  was  an  undertaking  both  injudicious 
and  useless.  It  is  true,  that  when  Matthsei  collected 
his  own  materials,  he  had  not  access  to  those  of  Mill 
or  Wetstein  :  yet  he  knew  at  least  of  their  existence^ 
and  ought  not  to  have  amended  without  them.  But 
having  done  so,  and  having  thus  incurred  the  censure 
of  men  more  experienced  in  sacred  criticism,  espe- 
cially of  Michaelis  and  Griesbach,  he  resolved  to  de- 
fend himself,  by  vilifying  the  sources,  from  which, 
when  he  began  to  publish,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to 
draw.  To  the  class  of  manuscripts,  to  which  the  Co- 
dex Bezse,  the  Codex  Claromontonus,  and  others  of 
high  antiquity  belong,  he  gave  in  his  Preface  to  St. 
John's  Gospel  the  appellation  of  editio  scurrilis:  nor 
are  softer  epithets  applied  by  him  to  the  critics,  who 
ventured  to  defend  such  manuscripts.  The  antipathy, 
which  he  thus  acquired,  deterred  him,  even  after  his 
return  to  German}^,  which  was  before  the  publication 
of  the  four  last-pri.nted  volumes,  from  making  that  use 
of  Wetstein's  edition,  which  it  was  then  in  his  power 

to  do,  and  which  he  probably  would  have  done,  if  he 
5 


30  LECTURE  Vm. 

had  possessed  it  at  the  commencement  of  his  labours. 
It  is  much  to  be  lamented,  that  so  distinguished  a 
scholar  should  have  been  led,  either  by  necessity  or 
by  choice,  to  make  so  partial  an  application  of  critical 
materials.  Whatever  opinion  be  formed  of  the  rela- 
tive value  attached  to  the  different  classes  of  Greek 
manuscripts,  whether  the  opinion  of  Michaelis  and 
Griesbach  on  the  ojte  hand,  or  of  Matthaei  on  the  oth- 
er hand  be  the  true  one,  the  fact,  that  Matthaei  under- 
took a  revision  of  the  Greek  text  on  the  authority  of 
one  set  of  manuscripts,  must  remain  undisputed.  And 
since  no  impartial  judge  can  admit,  that  the  genuine 
text  of  the  Greek  l^estament  may  be  established,  as 
well  by  applying  only  a  part  of  our  materials,  as  by  a 
judicious  employment  of  the  whole,  the  edition  of 
Matthzei  is  only  so  far  of  importance,  as  it  furnishes 
new  materials  for  future  uses ;  materials  indeed,  which 
are  accompanied  with  much  useful  information,  and 
many  learned  remarks. 

About  the  same  period,  namely  in  1786  and  1787, 
Professor  Alter  at  Vienna  published  an  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  in  two  thick  octavos.  The  text  of 
this  edition  is  neither  the  common  text,  nor  a  revision 
of  it,  but  a  mere  copy  from  a  single  manuscript,  and 
that  not  a  very  ancient  one,  in  the  Imperial  Library  at 
Vienna.  The  various  readings,  which  are  not  ar- 
ranged as  in  other  editions,  but  are  printed  in  separate 
parcels  as  first  made  by  the  collator,  are  likewise  de- 
rived from  Greek  manuscripts  in  the  Imperial  Libra- 
ry. And  the  whole  collation  was  augmented  by  ex- 
tracts from  the  Coptic,  the  Slavonian,  and  the  Latin 


LECTURE  vni.  31 

versions,  which  are  also  printed  in  the  same  indi  (jest- 
ed manner,  as  the  Greek  readings.  Alter's  edition 
therefore  contains  mere  materials  for  future  uses. 

While  Matthcei  was  employed  at  Moscow  and 
Alter  at  Vienna,  Professors  Birch  and  Alder  were  en- 
gaged by  the  late  King  of  Denmark  to  travel  into  It- 
aly, and  Professors  Moldenhawer  and  Tychsen  to 
travel  into  Spain,  in  search  of  further  materials  for 
the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament.  For  this  pur- 
pose they  examined  the  principal  libraries  in  Venice, 
Florence,  Bologna,  and  Rome,  with  the  library  of  the 
Escurial  in  Spain.  The  produce  of  their  researches, 
as  far  as  relates  to  the  four  Gospels,  was  published  by 
Professor  Birch  at  Copenhagen  in  1788,  in  a  quarto 
volume,  designed  for  the  first  volume  of  an  edition  of 
the  Greek  Testament :  and  in  the  Prolegomena  to 
this  volume  was  given  a  detailed  account  of  the  col- 
lated manuscripts.  In  the  text  of  this  edition  no  al- 
terations were  made.  It  contains  therefore  only  mar 
teriah  for  emendation  :  and  if  these  materials  had  been 
printed  by  themselves,  the  same  benefit  would  have 
accrued  to  the  public  at  a  smaller  expense.  Indeed 
the  various  readings  to  the  other  books  of  the  New 
Testament  ivere  printed  by  themselves,  though  not 
before  1798,  the  publication  of  the  second  volume  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  to  which  the  editor  proposed  to 
annex  them,  having  been  prevented  by  the  fire  at  Co- 
penhagen, which  destroyed  the  royal  printing-office. 
Now  these  extracts,  with  those  printed  in  the  former 
volume,  contain  some  very  important  additions  to  our 
stock  of  critical  materials.      A  complete  collation  is 


^  LECTURE  Vm. 

given  of  that  distinguished  manuscript,  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus,  and 
which  till  that  time,  namely  in  the  New  Testament, 
had  been  only  partially  examined.  Another  very  im- 
portant addition  consisted  in  the  extracts  from  a  Syr- 
iac  version,  written  in  a  peculiar  dialect,  which  Adler, 
who  collated  it  at  Rome,  calls  the  dialect  of  Jeru- 
salem. This  ancient  version,  which  Adlcr  has  mi- 
nutely described  in  his  Versiones  Syriac^,  published 
at  Copenhagen  in  1789,  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  its 
agreement  with  our  Codex  Bezas.  Indeed  there  are 
eleven  readings,  hitherto  thought  peculiar  to  this  man- 
uscript, which  are  all  found  in  that  ancient  version. 
And  as  the  manuscrij)t,  to  which  it  has  the  nearest 
affinity  after  the  Codex  Bezae,  is  the  Codex  Vatica- 
nus, its  critical  value  is  decided. 

In  addition  to  the  new  sources,  which  were  open- 
ed in  the  interval  between  Griesbach's  first  and  second 
edition,  must  be  noticed  some  publications,  which 
contributed  to  augment  or  improve  the  knowledge  aU 
ready  acquired.  Thus  the  Philoxenian  version,  which 
Wetstein  had  imperfectly  collated  in  manuscript,  be- 
ing printed  by  Dr.  White  at  Oxford  in  1778  (namely 
the  four  Gospels,  for  the  other  books  were  deferred 
more  than  twenty  years,)  enabled  Griesbach  to  cor- 
rect various  mistakes  in  the  former  collation,  and 
make  to  it  considerable  additions.  Similar  advanta- 
ges were  derived  from  the  publication  of  some  ancient 
Greek  manuscripts,  of  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  by 
Woide  in  London  in  1786,  of  the  Codex  Boerneria- 
nus  by  Matthsei  at  Meissen  in  1791,  and  of  the  Co- 
dex Bezas  by  Dr.  Kipling  at  Cambridge  in  1793. 


LECTURE  VIII.  33 

But  after  all  the  materials  collected  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  a  correct  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
materials  for  which  all  the  known  libraries  in  Europe 
had  been  searched,  and  which  it  had  employed  nearly 
three  centuries  to  obtain,  there  was  still  wanted  an  ed- 
itor of  sufficient  learning,  acuteness,  industry,  and  im- 
partiality in  the  weighing  of  evidence,  to  apply  those 
materials  to  their  proper  object.  Dr.  Griesbach,  by 
his  first  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament,  had  already 
afforded  convincing  proofs  of  his  critical  ability :  and 
hence  the  learned  in  general,  especially  in  his  own 
country,  regarded  him  as  the  person,  who  was  best 
qualified  to  undertake  this  new  revision  of  the  Greek 
text.  Indeed  the  subject  had  formed  the  business  of 
his  life.  Like  Wetstein,  when  he  had  finished  his  ac- 
ademical studies,  he  travelled  into  France  and  Eng- 
land, for  the  purpose  of  collating  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament.  But  as  the  stock  of  materials  was 
then  very  considerably  larger,  than  when  Wetstein 
commenced  his  literary  labours,  it  was  not  so  much 
his  object  to  increase^  as  to  revise^  the  apparatus  al- 
ready provided.  For  this  purpose  he  re-examined 
the  most  ancient  manuscripts,  wherever  doubts  might 
be  entertained,  and  it  was  important  to  ascertain  the 
truth.  The  peculiar  readings,  which  distinguish  one 
class  of  manuscripts  from  another,  and  are  the  basis 
on  which  that  classification  is  formed,  were  likewise 
objects  of  particular  attention.  But  he  in  general  dis- 
regarded the  juass  of  readings,  which  are  common  to 
most  manuscripts,  as  serving  rather  to  encumber,  than 
to  improve  our  critical  apparatus..    At  the  same  time, 


S4.  LECTURE  VIIL 

whenever  uncoUated  manuscripts  presented  them- 
selves to  his  notice,  he  neglected  not  to  extract  what 
was  worthy  of  attention.  The  fruits  of  his  researches, 
with  his  remarks  on  the  examined  manuscripts,  he 
published  in  two  octavo  volumes  printed  at  Halle  in 
1785  and  1793  under  the  following  title :  Symbolce 
entices^  ad  supplendas  et  corrigendas  variarum  A'uvi 
Testamenti  lect'ionum  collectiones :  accedit  multorum 
J\''ovi  Testamenti  codicum  Gr^corum  descnptio  et  exa- 
vien.  This  work  contains  tlie  principles,  on  which 
Gricsbach  has  founded  his  critical  system  ;  and  con- 
sequently should  be  studied  by  every  man,  who  at- 
tempts to  form  an  estimate  of  his  critical  merits. 

As  the  quotations  from  the  Greek  Testament, 
which  are  scattered  in  the  writings  of  the  most  ancient 
Greek  Fathers,  are  of  great  importance  in  ascertaining 
the  genuineness  of  disputed  passages,  he  undertook  a 
new  and  complete  collation  of  the  works  of  Origen, 
which  he  also  published  in  his  Symbolse  critical,  ac- 
companied with  the  quotations  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, which  differed  from  the  common  text. 

Further,  as  the  testimony  of  the  most  ancient  Lat- 
in versions,  such  as  those,  which  have  been  published 
by  Blanchini  and  Sabatier,  are,  in  many  cases,  impor- 
tant to  the  Greek  text,  he  undertook  a  new  collation 
of  those  ancient  versions.  Of  the  Sahidic  version,  or 
the  version  in  the  dialect  of  the  Upper  Egypt,  he 
quoted  the  readings,  which  had  been  furnished  by 
Woide,  Georgi,  and  Miinter.  Of  the  Armenian  ver- 
sion a  new  collation  was  made  for  him  by  Bredenkamp 
of  Bremen  :    and  the  Slavonian  version  was  collated 


LECTURE  VIII.  3S 

for  him,  both  in  manuscript,  and  in  print,  by  Dobrow- 
sky  at  Prague.  Nor  must  we  neglect  to  mention  the 
fragments  of  two  very  ancient  Greek  manuscripts, 
preserved  at  Wolfenbiittel,  which  Knittel  had  pub- 
lished with  his  Fragment  of  the  Gothic  version. 

Such  were  the  materials,  which  Griesbach  appli- 
ed to  his  second  and  last  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, in  addition  to  the  apparatus,  which  was  already 
contained  in  Wetstein's  edition,  and  which  was  sub- 
sequently augmented  by  the  editions  described  in  this 
Lecture.  The  Jirst  volume  of  Griesbach's  second 
edition,  containing  the  four  Gospels,  was  published  in 
1796 ;  the  second  volume,  containing  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  was  published  in  1806.  The 
place  of  publication  was  Halle,  the  same  bookseller, 
who  had  purchased  the  copy-right  of  the  first  edition, 
having  purchased  also  the  copy-right  of  the  second. 
And  as  a  part  of  the  impression,  (which  was  taken  off 
on  a  better  paper  sent  by  his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Graf- 
ton) was  destined  for  sale  in  England,  the  name  of 
London  as  well  as  of  Halle  was  put  on  the  title-page. 
But,  what  is  more  important  than  either  the  paper  or 
the  place  of  publication^  it  was  printed  at  Jena  under 
Griesbach's  immediate  inspection. 

There  is  a  question  however  in  reserve,  of  still 
greater  consequence  than  the  extent  or  the  value  even 
of  the  critical  materials ;  and  that  is,  Have  those  ma- 
terials been  properly  applied  to  the  emendation  of  the 
Greek  text  ?  That  they  were  conscientiously  applied, 
is  admitted  by  every  man,  to  whom  Griesbach's  char- 
acter is  known.     His  scrupulous  integrity,  as  a  man 


86  LECTURE  VIII. 

and  as  a  scliolar,  is  sufficient  £i;uarantee  for  the  honest 
appUcation  of  them.  Nor  have  his  contemporaries 
ever  questioned  either  his  learnin,^,  or  his  judgment, 
if  we  except  Matthcei,  who  wrote  under  the  influence 
of  personal  animosity.  Of  the  emendations,  which  he 
has  introduced,  there  are  many,  which  had  received 
the  approbation  even  of  the  early  editors,  Erasmus 
and  Beza ;  others  had  been  approved  by  Mill ;  oth- 
ers again  by  Bengelius ;  and  most  of  them  by  Wet- 
stehi  and  Bowyer.  That  on  the  other  hand,  there  are 
many,  on  which  the  opinion  of  Griesbach  differs  even 
from  that  of  Wetstein,  may  be  explained  from  the  op- 
eration of  three  causes,  which  it  is  here  necessary  to 
assign. 

In  the  first  place,  the  augmentation  of  the  critical 
apparatus  since  the  death  of  Wetstein,  and  the  conse- 
quent alteration  in  the  relative  evidence  for  different 
readings  to  the  same  passage,  must  in  some  cases  have 
made  an  alteration  in  their  respective  claims  to  au- 
thenticity. Another  difference  was  occasioned  by  the 
circumstance  of  Wetstein's  entertaining  a  suspicion, 
that  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  the  Codex  Bezas,  and 
some  other  very  ancient  manuscripts  contained  a 
Greek  text,  which  had  been  altered  from  the  Latin 
version.  That  this  suspicion  is  ungrounded,  has 
been  clearly  shewn,  both  by  Griesbach  in  his  Sym- 
bolse  criticse,  and  by  Woide  in  his  Preface  to  the  Co- 
dex Alexandrinus.  And  it  is  manifest,  that,  when 
we  are  weighing  our  authorities,  our  decisions  will  be 
greatly  affected  by  the  rejection  on  the  one  hand,  or 
by  the  admission  on  the  other,  of  such  manuscripts, 


LECTURE  VIII.  37 

as  those,  which  I  have  just  mentioned.  But  the  third 
cause  was  more  powerful  in  its  operation,  than  either 
of  the  preceding :  and  as  this  third  cause  forms  the 
basis  of  Griesbach's  critical  system,  it  must  be  more 
fully  explained. 

In  determining  the  quantum  of  evidence  for  or 
against  a  particular  reading,  the  authorities  used  to  be 
rather  numbered  than  -weighed;  so  that,  if  a  reading 
were  contained  in  thirty  manuscripts  out  oi  fifty ^  the 
scale  was  supposed  to  turn  in  its  favour.  It  is  true, 
that  under  similar  circumstances,  more  importance 
was  attached  to  ancient^  than  to  modern  manuscripts : 
but  the  modes  of  estimating  that  importance  were  so 
various,  that  the  same  premises  not  unfrequently  led 
to  different  conclusions.  Nor  was  due  attention  paid 
to  that  necessary  distinction  between  the  antiquity  of 
a  manuscript^  and  the  antiquity  of  its  text,  Wetstein, 
in  his  Animadversiones  et  Cautiones^  annexed  to  his 
Greek  Testament,  went  a  great  way  toward  the  reduc- 
ing of  sacred  criticism  to  a  regular  system.  But 
much  still  remained  to  be  performed,  for  which  we 
are  indebted  to  Semler,  who  laid  the  foundation,  and 
to  Griesbach,  who  raised  the  superstructure. 

From  a  comparison  and  combination  of  the  read- 
ings exhibited  by  Wetstein  it  was  discovered,  that 
certain  characteristic  readings  distinguished  certaia 
manuscripts,  fathers,  and  versions  ;  that  other  charac- 
teristic readings  pointed  out  a  second  class ;  others 
again  a  third  class  of  manuscripts,  fathers,  and  ver- 
sions.    It  was  further  discovered,  that  this  three-fold 

classification  had  an  additional  foundation  in  respect  to 
6 


33  LECTURE  VIU. 

the  placeSy  where  the  manuscripts  were  written,  the  fa- 
thers lived,  and  the  versions  were  made.  Hence  the 
three  classes  received  the  names  of  Recensio  Alexan- 
drina,  Recensio  Constantinopolitana  or  Byzantina,  and 
Recensio  Occidentalis  :  not  that  any  formal  revision  of 
the  Greek  text  is  known,  either  from  history  or  from 
tradition,  to  have  taken  place,  at  Alexandria,  at  Con- 
stantinople, or  in  Western  Europe.  But  whatever 
causesy  unknown  to  us,  may  have  operated  in  produc- 
ing the  effect,  there  is  no  doubt  of  its  existence :  there 
is  no  doubt  that  those  characteristic  readings  are  real- 
ly contained  in  the  manuscripts,  fathers,  and  versions, 
and  that  the  classification,  which  is  founded  on  them, 
is  founded  therefore  on  truth.  Hence  arises  a  new 
criterion  of  authenticity.  A  majority  of  individual 
manuscripts  can  no  longer  be  considered,  either  as 
decisive,  or  even  as  very  important  on  this  subject. 
A  majority  of  the  Recensions^  or  as  we  should  say  of 
printed  books,  a  majority  of  the  Editions ^  is  alone  to 
be  regarded,  as  far  as  number  is  concerned.  The  tes- 
timony of  the  individual  manuscripts  is  applied  to  as- 
certain what  is  the  reading  of  this  or  that  Edition  : 
but  the  question  oi  fact  being  once  determined,  it 
ceases  to  be  of  consequence  what  number  of  manu- 
scripts  may  be  produced,  either  of  the  first,  or  of  the 
second,  or  of  the  third  of  those  Editions.  For  in- 
stance, when  we  have  once  ascertained  that  any  par- 
ticular reading  belongs  both  to  the  Alexandrine  and 
to  the  Western,  but  not  to  the  Byzantine  Edition,  the 
authority  of  that  reading  will  not  be  VvTakened,  even 
though  it  should  appear  on  counting  the  manuscripts. 


LECTURE  Vm.  S5 

that  the  number  of  those,  which  range  themselves  un- 
der the  B}^zantine  Edition,  is  ten  times  greater,  than 
that  of  the  other  two  united.  We  must  argue  in  this 
case,  as  we  argue  in  the  comparison  of  printed  edi- 
tions, where  we  simply  inquire,  what  are  the  readings 
of  this  or  that  edition,  and  never  think  of  asking  for 
the  purpose  of  criticism^  how  many  copies  were  struck 
off  at  the  office,  where  it  was  printed.  The  relative 
value  of  those  three  editions  must  likewise  be  consid- 
ered. For  if  any  one  of  them,  the  Byzantine  for  in- 
stance, to  which  most  of  the  modern  manuscripts  be- 
long, carries  with  it  less  weight  than  either  of  the  oth- 
er two,  a  proportional  deduction  must  be  made, 
whether  it  be  thrown  into  the  scale  by  itself,  or  in 

conjunction  with  another. Such  are  the  outlines  oi 

that  system,  which  Griesbach  has  applied  to  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Greek  Testament.  The  subject  is  so 
new,  and  at  the  same  time  so  intricate,  that  it  is  hard- 
ly possible  to  give  more  than  a  general  notion  of  it  in 
a  public  Lecture.  It  requires  long  and  laborious  in- 
vestigation :  but  it  is  an  investigation,  which  every 
biblical  scholar  will  readily  undertake,  when  he  con- 
siders, that  it  involves  the  question,  What  is  the  gen- 
uine text  of  the  New  Testament  ? 

As  the  classification  of  manuscripts,  fathers,  and 
versions,  with  all  its  concomitant  circumstances,  sup- 
plies us  widi  the  rules  of  external  evidence,  an  exam- 
ination of  the  causes  which  produced  the  variations  of 
the  text,  suggests  the  laws  or  canons  of  internal  evi- 
dence. Thus  a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  transcrib- 
ers have  in  general  been  more  inclined  to  add  than  to 


40  LECTURE  VIII. 

oinit,  suggests  the  canon,  that,  where  different  read- 
ings are  of  unequal  lengths,  the  shorter  is  probably  the 
genuine.  Again  a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  tran- 
scribers were  disposed  to  exchange  the  Hebraisms  of 
the  New  Testament  for  purer  Greek,  suggests  the  ca- 
non, that,  when  of  two  readings  the  one  is  oriental^ 
the  other  classical,  the  former  is  the  genuine  reading, 
the  latter  a  correction.  Further,  as  it  is  more  proba- 
ble that  an  easy  reading  should  be  substituted  for  a 
hard  one,  than  the  contrary,  the  latter,  as  far  as  inter- 
nal evidence  goes,  deserves  the  preference.  And 
whether  alterations  be  ascribed  to  design  or  to  acci- 
dent, we  must  consider,  when  we  meet  with  several 
readings  to  the  same  passage,  which  of  them  might 
most  easily  have  given  rise  to  the  others.  For,  if  by 
supposing  that  one  in  particular  is  the  ancient  reading, 
we  can  account  for  the  origin  of  the  rest,  and  the  same 
supposition,  when  applied  to  any  other,  affords  not  a 
similar  solution,  the  reading,  to  which  it  does  apph% 
acquires  from  this  circumstance  an  argument  in  its  fa- 
vour. 

But  neither  external  nor  internal  evidence  can  be 
estimated  alone.  They  must  be  weighed  together: 
and  we  must  be  careful  to  ascertain  the  momentum, 
which  belongs  to  each.  Sometimes  the  external  evi- 
dence is  at  variance  with  the  internal:  at  other  times 
the  sources  of  external  evidence  are  at  variance  among 
themselves  :  and  in  all  these  cases  very  extensive 
knowledge,  and  the  most  strict  impartiality  are  neces- 
sary for  the  adjustment  of  their  respective  claims. 

That  Griesbach  has  fulfilled  the  duties,  which  in 


LECTURE  VIII.  41 

these  respects  he  owed  to  the  pubhc,  that  his  dili- 
gence was  unremitted,  that  his  caution  was  extreme, 
that  his  erudition  was  profound,  and  that  his  judg- 
ment was  directed  by  a  sole  regard  to  the  evidence 
before  him,  will  in  general  be  allowed  by  those,  who 
have  studied  his  edition,  and  are  able  to  appreciate  its 
merits.  That  his  decisions  are  always  correct,  that 
in  all  cases  the  evidence  is  so  nicely  weighed  as  to 
produce  unerring  results,  that  weariness  of  mind  un- 
der painful  investigation  has  in  no  instance  occasioned 
au  important  oversight,  that  prejudice  or  partiality  has 
710  where  influenced  his  general  regard  for  critical  jus- 
tice, would  be  affirmations,  which  can  hardly  apply 
to  any  editor,  however  good  or  great.  But,  if  at  any 
time  he  has  erred,  he  has  at  the  same  time  enabled 
those,  who  are  competent  judges,  to  decide  for  them- 
selves, by  stating  the  contending  evidence  with  clear- 
ness and  precision.  Emendations  founded  on  con- 
jecture, however  ingenious,  he  has  introduced  nof  in 
a  single  instance :  they  arc  all  founded  on  quoted  au- 
thority. Our  attention  is  even  solicited  and  directed 
to  that  authority,  the  adopted  readings  being  always 
printed  in  smaller  characters  than  the  rest  of  the  text, 
and  with  reference  to  the  rejected  readings,  which  are 
printed  in  the  inner  margin  in  the  same  letters  with 
the  text,  while  both  of  them  refer  to  the  respective 
evidence,  which  is  produced  below.  If  readings  are 
added,  where  none  existed  before,  or  are  withdrawn 
without  substitution,  the  changes  are  marked  with 
equal  clearness,  and  are  equally  supported  by  critical 
authority.     When  the  evidence  is  not  sufficiently  de- 


4i3  LECTURE  VIII. 

cisive  to  warrant  an  alteration  in  the  text,  the  readings 
worthy  of  notice  are  placed  in  the  inner  margin,  with 
different  marks  expressive  of  their  different  claims. 

Whoever  proposes  to  use  this  edition  (and  it 
should  be  used  by  every  biblical  scholar)  ^vill  find  in 
the  Prolegomena  a  more  comj^lete  description,  both 
of  the  critical  apparatus,  and  of  the  mode  of  applying 
it.  I  have  been  already  so  diffuse  on  this  subject, 
that  it  is  time  to  close  it.  But  let  not  the  attention, 
which  has  been  given  to  it,  be  given  in  vain.  The 
edition  thus  minutely  described  is  the  most  important, 
which  has  been  hitherto  published  :  nor  is  it  proba- 
\  ble,  that  during  the  lives  even  of  the  youngest  of  my 
hearers  any  other  critical  edition  should  supersede  it. 
From  the  exertions,  which  have  been  already  made,  it 
is  not  likely  that  new  materials  of  much  importance 
should  be  brought  to  light :  and  even  if  there  should, 
it  is  still  less  likely,  that  another  such  editor  should  be 
found  to  arrange  and  digest  them. 

Having  thus  finished  the  history  of  the  Greek  text, 
I  shall  describe  in  the  next  Lecture  the  criticism  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  according  to  its  several  depart- 
tnents  ;  and  at  the  same  time  shall  enumerate  the  au- 
thors, which  respectively  belong  to  them. 


■5  / 


LECTURE  IX. 


In  the  account  of  the  plan,  which  I  proposed  to 
observe  throughout  the  course  of  these  Lectures,  they 
were  represented  as  a  Book  of  directions,  from 
which  in  the  first  place  might  be  learned  the  order 
and  connexion^  in  which  Theology  should  be  studied, 
and  in  the  next  place  might  be  derived  a  knowledge 
of  the  authors  J  who  have  best  explained  the  several 
subjects.  With  this  knowledge  of  authors  it  was 
further  proposed  to  mnite  "  a  knowledge  of  the  ad- 
vancement or  decline  of  theological  learning,  a  knowl- 
edge of  how  much  or  how  little  has  been  performed 
in  the  different  ages  of  Christianty." 

Agreeably  to  this  plan  I  have  hitherto  treated  the 
criticism  of  the  Bible,  which  was  shewn  in  the  sec- 
ond Lecture  to  be  the  primary  branch  of  Theology. 
During  the  early  and  the  middle  ages,  it  was  describ- 
ed in  the  order  of  time,  as  critics  and  criticism  suc- 
cessively presented  themselves  to  our  view.  But  as 
authors  have  multiplied  since  the  invention  of  print- 
ing beyond  all  comparison  with  former  periods,  per- 
spicuity required  a  separation  of  the  subjects  in  the  de- 


44  LECTURE  IX. 

scription  of  the  three  last  centuries,  though  the  order 
of  time  has  still  been  preserved.  The  criticism  of 
the  Greek  Testament^  which  demands  our  peculiar  at- 
tention, was  selected  as  the  first  object :  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  Greek  text  from  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tion in  1514  to  that  of  Griesbach  which  was  finished 
in  1806,  has  employed  more  than  three  Lectures.  But 
though  the  labour  and  the  researches  necessary  for 
this  description  have  been  no  less  extensive,  than  for 
a  dissertation  adorned  with  all  the  pomp  of  learning,  it 
has  been  my  chief  endeavour  to  give  as  plain  and  as 
popular  an  account,  as  the  subject  would  admit.  I 
have  rather  studied  to  excite  a  taste  for  biblical  criti- 
cism, by  presenting  it  in  an  easy  and  acceptable  form, 
than  to  assume  the  garb  of  erudition,  which,  by  mag- 
nifying the  difficulties  of  the  task,  might  have  deter- 
red my  hearers  from  engaging  in  it.  Nor  did  the 
plan,  which  Ir  proposed  to  adopt  generally  in  these 
Lectures,  require  more  than  an  introductory  narrative, 
though  perhaps  in  the  present  instance  the  execution 
of  the  plan  has  in  some  measure  exceeded  the  origin- 
al design.  Whether  more  or  less  has  been  performed, 
than  was  expected,  it  is  necessary  in  the  present  Lec- 
ture to  fulfil  another  part  of  the  general  plan,  and  to 
give  some  account  of  the  authors,  who  have  illustrat- 
ed the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,  according 
to  its  several  departments. 

But  be'fore  we  enter  on  the  proposed  enumeration, 
we  must  guard  against  the  difficulties  and  contradic- 
tions, arising  from  the  diffiirent  lights,  in  which  bibli- 
cal criticism  has  been  viewed  by  different  writers.    It 


LECTURE  IX.  4^ 

was  observed  in  the  second  Lecture,  that  the  opera- 
tions of  criticism  and  the  operations  of  interpretation 
are  so  distinct,  that  they  ought  not,  however  sub-di- 
vided, to  be  placed  in  the  same  class.  But  this  dis- 
tinction is  so  far  from  being  generally  observed,  that 
mani/  if  not  7?iost  English  writers,  use  the  term  "  bib- 
lical criticism"  in  so  extensive  a  sense  as  to  include 
also  biblical  interpretation y  especially  when  the  inter- 
pretation relates  to  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible. 
It  is  true,  that  no  inconvenience  will  arise  from  this 
application  of  the  term,  if  care  be  taken  to  keep  sepa- 
rate the  subjects,  which  it  is  thus  made  to  comprehend. 
But  though  some  writers,  who  use  the  term  in  this 
extensive  sense,  (for  instance  Dr.  Gerard)  have  made 
the  proper  distinctions,  there  are  other  writers,  who,  in 
consequence  of  their  using  one  name  for  different 
things,  have  treated  them  indiscriminately,  and  thence 
have  perplexed  both  themselves  and  their  readers.  To 
prevent  such  confusion  I  have  in  these  Lectures  inva- 
riably used  the  term  "  biblical  or  sacred  criticism"  in 
its  proper  and  confined  sense,  namely  as  the  sum  and 
substance  of  that  knowledge,  which  enables  us  to  as- 
certain the  genuineness  of  a  disputed  text.  That  this 
is  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  here  used,  appears 
not  only  from  the  explanation  of  it  in  the  second  Lec- 
ture, but  from  the  constant  application  of  it  in  all  the 
subsequent  Lectures. 

The  operations  of  criticism  having  been  thus  dis- 
tinguished from  those  of  interpretation,  we  may  now 
deduce  an  additional  argument  in  favour  of  that  pri- 
ority, which  has  been  given  to  the  study  of  the  for- 
7 


46  LECTURE  IX. 

mer.  Throughout  the  description  of  this  branch  of 
Theology,  no  position  has  been  taken  for  granted  out 
of  any  other  branch.  But  when  we  enter  on  the  sec- 
ond branch,  or  the  interpretation  of  the  Bil^le,  we  shall 
be  frequently  obliged,  unless  our  inquiries  are  super- 
ficial, to  refer  to  the  criticism  of  the  Bible.  We  shall 
frequently  be  obliged  to  determine  the  true  reading  of 
a  passage,  before  we  can  determine  its  true  meaning* 
*'  Inter pretationem  veram  frustra  quserimus,  ubi  de 
vera  lectione  dubitamus."  This  very  just  observa- 
tion is  made  by  Dr.  Kennicott  in  his  Dissertatio  gen- 
eralis,  who  immediately  adds,  "  Statuatur  vera  lectioy 
et  banc  presse  sequatur  ve7'a  interpretation'''*  Since 
then  an  'interpreter  of  the  Greek  Testament  should  be 
previously  acquainted  with  the  criticism  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  and  so  much  knowledge  in  respect  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,  as  is  necessary  to 
form  a  tolerable  judgment  of  the  text,  may  be  acquir- 
ed even  before  we  enter  on  the  business  of  interpreta- 
tion, we  can  no  longer  hesitate  on  the  question,  where 
our  theological  studies  should  begin. 

Let  it  not  be  objected,  that  the  laws  of  criticism 
can  hardly  be  understood,  and  much  less  applied  to  a 
passage  of  the  Greek  Testament,  by  those,  who  are 
not  already  able  to  construe  it.  These  Lectures  are 
addressed  in  particular  to  an  audience,  where  it  may 
be  safely  pre  supposed,  that  every  one  is  already  able 
to  construe  the  Greek  Testament,  able  therefore,  both 
to  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  various  readings,  and 
to  understand  what  is  meant,  when  he  is  informed, 
that  such  and  such  readings  are  supported  by  such 


LECTURE  IX.  47 

and  such  authorities.  But  to  construe  and  to  interpret 
a  passage  are  two  distinct  things.  To  the  latter 
something  more  is  wanted,  than  a  readiness  at  the 
former :  otherwise  the  English  translation,  which  is 
Greek  construed  into  English,  would  be  sufficient 
without  otiier  assistance.  It  is  true,  that  the  further 
we  advance  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  the  bet- 
ter we  shall  be  qualified  to  criticise  on  the  Bible.  But 
does  it  follow,  that,  because  the  highest  excellence  in 
criticism  is  not  to  be  obtained  till  we  are  conversant 
with  another  branch  of  Theology,  we  must  therefore 
defer  the  study  of  its  principles^  till  that  other  branch 
is  completed  ?  Has  it  not  been  shewn,  that  without 
criticism  this  other  branch  never  can  be  completed  ? 
We  must  distinguish  between  the  acquirement  of 
knowledge,  and  that  readiness,  that  certainty  in  the 
application  of  it,  which  can  only  be  obtained  by  long 
experience. 

It  is  surely  desirable  even  at  the  commencement  of 
our  theological  studies  to  be  provided  with  the  best 
critical  edition  of  the  Greek  restament,  as  being  the 
edition  most  likely  to  contain  the  genuine  text.  And 
as  this  edition  not  unfrequently  differs  from  the  com- 
mon text,  which  we  ought  in  no  case  to  reject  without 
reason,  it  is  our  primary  duty  to  obtain  as  much  in- 
formation, as  may  enable  us  to  form  some  judgment 
on  the  question,  whether  there  is  reason  or  not  for  the 
proposed  alterations.  For  this  purpose  it  is  not  re- 
quired, that  we  should  undertake  the  drudgery  of  col- 
lating either  manuscripts,  fathers,  or  versions.  This 
labour  of  criticism  is  performed  to  our  hands:    we 


4S  LECTURE  IX. 

have  only  to  learn  what  others  have  already  done^  and 
to  understand  what  has  been  done,  that  wc  may  know 
whether  it  is  well  or  ill  done.  The  more  convejiient 
and  expeditious  mode  of  studying  theology  is  certain- 
ly to  take  for  granted  on  the  bare  assertion  of  those, 
who  are  supposed  acquainted  with  the  subject,  that 
such  and  such  readings  are  genuine,  and  that  such 
and  such  readings  are  spurious.  It  is  likewise  a  more 
convenient  and  expeditious  mode  of  studying  mathe- 
matics^ when  a  pupil  confiding  in  the  assertion  of  his 
tutor,  that  the  properties  ascribed  to  the  coTiic  sections 
are  founded  in  truth,  proceeds  to  Newton's  Principia, 
without  learning  to  demonstrate  those  properties.  And 
this  confidence,  this  deference  to  the  judgment  of  oth- 
ers is  not  uncommon,  in  Mathematics  as  well  as  in 
Divinity.  But  neither  in  the  one  case,  nor  in  the  oth- 
er, will  this  confidence  be  attended  with  conviction. 
Now  the  avowed  object  of  these  Lectures  is  to  prodtwe 
conviction.  If  it  only  be  desired,  in  the  shortest  pos- 
sible time  to  learn  enough  of  Divinity  to  pass  an  ex- 
amination, the  well-known  publication  of  Dr.  Arthur 
St.  George  is  much  better  fitted  for- the  purpose. 

Even  that  portion  of  sacred  criticism,  which  in  its 
application  belongs  to  the  third  branch  of  Divinity,  or 
the  authenticity  of  the  Bible,  is  in  its  principles  so 
connected  with  verbal  criticism,  that  the  basis,  on 
which  they  rest,  is  nearly  one  and  the  same.  From 
the  criticism  of  words  we  ascend  to  the  criticism  of 
sentences,  from  the  criticism  of  sentences  to  the  criti- 
cism of  chapters,  and  from  the  criticism  of  chapters  to 
the  criticism  of  whole  books.     To  illustrate  this  as- 


LECTURE  IX.  49 

cent,  an  example  of  each  will  be  sufficient.  If  we 
turn  to  Griesbach's  Greek  Testament  at  Matth. 
xxviii.  19.  we  shall  find  the  passage  thus  worded : 
HopivhvTsg  fJt.ct.9't^Tivarcx.rz  'xccvrcc  roc  iQv/i  (BocTTTi^ovTsg 
OLvrovi  etg  ro  ovof^oc  rov  Hccr^og,  kcci  rov  Ttov  xoct  too 
ecytov  Hvsvfjbctroc,  where  the  whole  difference  from 
the  common  text  consists  in  the  omission  of  the  par- 
ticle ovv.  This  omission  is  founded  on  the  authority, 
not  only  of  many  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  but  of 
the  ancient  Greek  Fathers,  Origen,  Athanasius,  Basil, 
Chrysostom,  and  Cyril,  who  are  expressly  quoted  for 
this  purpose.  From  the  criticism  of  the  particle  ovv, 
which  is  probably  spurious,  we  ascend  to  the  criti- 
cism of  the  whole  passage,  which  is  undoubtedly  gen- 
uine. For  if  Origen,  who  was  born  in  the  century 
after  that  in  which  St.  Matthew  wrote,  found  the 
passage  in  his  manuscript  of  the  Gospels,  with  the 
exception  only  of  a  particle,  and  the  Greek  Fathers  of 
the  fourth  centur}^  found  it  worded  in  the  same  man- 
ner in  their  manuscripts,  we  have  as  strong  a  proof  of 
its  authenticity,  as  can  be  given  or  required  in  works 
of  antiquity.  This  passage  therefore,  which  includes 
the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity,  rests  on  a  very  dif- 
ferent foundation  from  that  of  the  similar  passage  in 
the  fifth  chapter  of  St.  John's  first  Epistle,  a  passage, 
which  no  ancient  Greek  manuscript  contains,  and 
which  no  ancient  Greek  Father  ever  saw. 

From  the  criticism  of  sentences  we  ascend  to  the 
criticism  of  chapters.  It  is  well  known,  that  attempts 
have  been  made  to  invalidate  the  testimony  which  the 
two  first  chapters  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  bear  to  the 


so  LECTURE  IX. 

doctrine  of  the  incarnation,  by  contending,  that  those 
chapters  were  not  original  parts  of  Si.  Matthew's 
Gospel,  but  were  prefixed  to  it  by  some  other  per- 
son, at  some  later  period.  Now,  if  we  turn  to  the 
second  volume  of  Griesbach's  Symbolce  criticee, 
where  he  quotes  the  readings  of  the  Greek  Testament 
from  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen,  we  shall  find 
a  quotation  from  the  Jirst  chapter  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel,  and  a  reference  to  the  secondj  made  by  Cel- 
sus  the  Epicurean  philosopher,  which  quotation  and 
reference  are  noted  by  Origen,  who  wrote  in  answer 
to  Celsus.  "  Hinc  patet  (says  Griesbach  very  just- 
ly) duo  priora  Matthaei  capita  Celso  nota  fuis^e." 
Now  if  Celsus,  who  wrote  his  celebrated  work  against 
the  Christians  in  the  time  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  and 
consequently  little  more  than  an  hundred  years  after 
St.  Matthew  himself  wrote,  yet  found  the  two  first 
chapters  in  his  manuscript  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel, 
those  chapters  must  either  have  been  original  parts  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  or  they  must  have  been  added 
at  a  time  so  little  antecedent  to  the  age  of  Celsus,  that 
a  writer  so  inquisitive,  so  sagacious,  and  at  the  same 
time  so  inimical  to  Christianity,  could  not  have  failed 
to  detect  the  imposture.  But  in  this  case  he  would 
not  have  quoted  those  chapters  as  parts  of  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel.  Consequently  the  truth  must  lie  in 
the  other  part  of  the  dilemma,  namely  that  those  chap- 
ters are  authentic. 

From  the  criticism  of  chapters  we  may  further  as- 
cend to  the  criticism  of  whole  books.  If  we  again 
consult  Griesbach's  collection  of  readings  from  Clem- 


I 


LECTURE  IX.  5i 

ent  of  Alexandria  and  Origen,  we  shall  find  that  these 
very  ancient  Fathers  had  not  only  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  but  manuscripts  of  the  same  Greek 
Testament,  which  we  possess  at  present ;  not  indeed 
the  same  throughout  in  words,  but  the  same  in  their 
general  contents,  the  same  in  the  leading  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  Faith.  In  this  manner  does  the  study 
of  sacred  criticism  contribute  to  the  discovery  of  those 
means,  by  which  we  gradually  establish  the  truth  of 
Christianity. 

After  these  preliminary  observations,  we  may  en- 
ter on  the  enumeration  of  the  authors,  who  have  illus- 
trated the  criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament,  accord- 
ing to  its  several  departments. 

Of  general  and  elementary  treatises,  there  is  none, 
which  is  more  to  be  recommended,  either  for  perspi- 
cuity or  correctness,  than  the  institutes  of  Biblical 
criticism,  published  at  Edinburgh  in  1808,  in  one 
volume  octavo,  by  Dr.  Gerard,  Professor  of  Divinity 
at  Aberdeen. 

A  knowledge  of  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment may  be  taken  from  Le  Long's  Bibliotheca  sacra. 
Le  Long,  who  was  one  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Oratory 
at  Paris,  published  his  Jirst  edition  of  this  work  at  the 
beginning  of  1709  in  two  octavo  volumes :  and  be- 
fore the  end  of  that  year  a  new  edition  of  it  appeared 
at  Leipzig  with  additions  by  Dr.  Boerner.  In  twelve 
years  from  the  publication  of  the  first  edition,  Le 
Long  had  further  augmented  his  work  by  such  an  ac- 
cession of  materials,  as  to  increase  it  to  two  folio  vol- 
umes, which  were  published  at  Paris  in  1723,  two 


m  LECTURE  IX. 

years  after  the  death  of  the  author.  The  first  volume 
of  this  /olio  edition  contains  an  account  of  the  then- 
known  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  with  the 
editions  of  it  to  the  beginning  of  the  eighteenth  centu- 
ry ;  an  account  of  the  then-known  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  with  the  editions  of  it  to  the  same 
period ;  an  account  of  the  oriental  and  other  ancient 
versions,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  and 
lastly  an  account  of  the  translations  of  the  Bible  into 
the  modern  languages.  Works  of  this  description 
arc  of  great  utility  to  the  biblical  scholar :  but  new 
editions  of  them,  or  at  least  suppleinents  to  them  are 
frequently  wanted,  to  register  the  accessions,  which 
are  continually  made  to  the  stock  of  biblical  literature. 
After  an  interval  of  more  than  fifty  years.  Dr.  An- 
drew Masch,  Superintendent  of  the  diocese  of  Star- 
gard  at  New  Strelitz,  selected  for  publication  those 
parts  of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra,  which  relate  to  the 
printed  editions  ;  namely  the  editions  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  of  the  Greek  Testament,  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions, and  of  the  modern  Latin  versions.  In  fact 
those  parts  were  made  only  the  basis  of  a  publication, 
which  may  be  considered  rather  as  a  new  work^  than 
as  a  new  edition.  It  was  published  at  Halle  in  six 
quarto  volumes,  the  first  in  1778,  the  last,  which  con- 
tains the  chronological  index,  in  1790.  All  the  edi- 
tions of  the  Greek  Testament,  to  the  time  of  its  pub- 
lication, are  enumerated  in  the  first  volume,  and  the 
principal  editions  are  described.  This  volume  is  the 
standard  book,  whence  subsequent  writers  have  chief- 
ly derived  the  accounts  which  they  have  given  of  the 


LECTURE  IX.  S9 

editions  of  the  Greek  Testament :  and  it  is  composed 
with  so  much  care  and  accuracy,  that  we  may  in  gen- 
eral depend  on  it.     But  little  or  no  information  can 
be  derived  from  it  in  respect  to  the  critical  history  of 
the  Greek  text,  though  it  is  of  great  value  in  respect 
to  the  external  history  of  the  editions. — In  this  res- 
pect, the  principal  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament 
are  very  well  described  in  Dibdin's  Introduction  to 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Classics.     A  neat  and  correct 
account  of  some  of  the  principal  editions  is  likewise 
given  in  Buder's  Horae  Biblicae.     A  short  account  of 
the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament  to  the  year  1790 
is  also  given  in  the  last  edition  of  Fabricii  Bibliotheca 
Grseca,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  volume.     A  view, 
though  an  imperfect  one,  of  the  principal  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament  is  annexed  by  Dr.  Harwood  to 
his  own  edition.     In  the  sixth  volume  of  that  very 
useful  publication,  the  Bibliographical  Dictionary,  is 
a  very  copious  catalogue  of  the  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament  accompanied   with    instructive    remarks. 
Many  other  catalogues  might  be  added ;  but  it  will 
be  sufficient,  if  we  close  the  account  with  the  BibliO' 
theca   biblica    serenissimi    JVuertenbergensium   DuciSf 
olim  Lorkianay  published  by  Adler  at  Altona  in  1787. 
It  is  a  catalogue  of  great  merit,  and  great  utility. 

Of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament,  as  far 
as  they  were  known  an  hundred  years  ago,  a  descrip- 
tion is  given  in  the  folio  edition  of  the  Bibliotheca  sa- 
cra. But  the  number  of  manuscripts,  which  have 
been  collected  since  that  period,  is  so  great,  and  our 
knowledge  of  manuscripts  in  general  has  so  increased, 
8 


54  LECTURE  IX. 

that  only  a  small  part  of  the  necessary  information  can 
now  be  derived  from  that  work  :  for  the  last  edition 
of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra,  as  was  before  observed,  con- 
tains no  account  of  manuscripts*  To  obtain  a  com- 
plete knowledge  of  all  the  collated  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  we  must  consult  the  Prolegomena 
or  Prefaces  to  the  editions  of  Mill,  Wetstein,  Matth^i, 
Birch,  and  Griesbach,  with  Griesbach's  Symbolae 
criticse.  Wetstein's  Prolegomena  have  been  pub- 
lished separately  in  an  octavo  volume  in  1764,  at  Halle, 
by  Dr.  Semler,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  that  Uni- 
versity, who  accompanied  the  edition  with  many  val- 
uable notes.  But  there  is  no  work,  from  which  a 
general  knowledge  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek 
Testament  can  be  derived  in  so  easy  a  manner,  as 
from  the  Introduction  of  Michaelis,  of  which  the  sec- 
ond volume  contains  a  descriptive  catalogue  alphabet- 
ically arranged.  It  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate 
the  accounts,  which  have  been  published  of  sijigle 
manuscripts  :  nor  can  it  be  necessary  at  present,  as 
references  to  such  publications  may  be  seen  under 
their  respective  heads,  in  the  descriptive  catalogue  just 
mentioned,  either  in  the  author's  text  or  in  the  trans- 
lator's notes.  But  the  description  of  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus,  which  is  given  by  Woide  in  the  Pref- 
ace to  his  edition  of  it,  so  surpasses  all  other  descrip- 
tions, which  have  been  given  of  single  manuscripts, 
that  it  merits  particular  notice.  On  this  account  it 
was  printed  separately  at  Leipzig  two  years  after- 
wards, with  notes  by  Spohn,  under  the  title,  Woidii 
Notitia  Codicis  Alexandrini. 


LECTURE  rX.  $5 

Of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
as  fai-  as  relates  to  the  printed  editions  of  them,  a  very 
full  account  is  given  in  the  second  Part  of  Masch's 
edition  of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra.  But  for  a  critical 
knowledge  of  those  ancient  versions,  we  must  have 
recourse  to  the  Introduction  of  Michaelis,  where  the 
table  of  contents  prefixed  to  the  second  volume  will 
immediately  shew  where  each  of  them  may  be  found. 
Indeed  the  description,  which  IVlichaelis  has  given  of 
the  ancient  versions  and  of  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  is  that  which  constitutes  the  most 
distinguished  merit  of  his  Introduction.  I  of  course 
mean  the  fourth  and  last  edition  ;  for  the  Jirst  edi- 
tion, though  still  produced  in  catalogues  and  lists  of 
theological  books,  is  in  these  respects  of  no  value 
whatever. 

The  quotations  from  the  Greek  Testament  in  the 
works  of  ecclesiastical  writers  have  been  the  subject 
of  long  and  serious  controversy.  While  the  Elzevir 
text  was  considered  as  perfect,  every  deviation  from 
that  text  was  consequently  regarded  as  a  deviation 
from  the  truth.  Whenever  it  was  observed  therefore, 
that  a  Greek  Father  quoted  the  Greek  Testament  in 
words,  which  were  not  precisely  the  same  as  the  El- 
zevir text,  it  was  inferred  that  in  those  quotations 
there  was  something  wrong.  And  since  it  is  not 
probable,  that  the  manuscripts  used  by  the  Greek  Fa- 
thers in  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries,  should 
be  less  conformable  than  modem  manuscripts  with  the 
autographs  of  the  sacred  writers,  the  differences  be- 
tween those  quotations  and  the  Elzevir  text  were  as- 


S6  LECTURE  IX. 

cribed  to  the  carelessness  of  the  Fathers,  in  quoting 
from  their  manuscripts.  But  as  it  is  no  longer  be- 
lieved, that  the  common  reading  may  always  be  de- 
fended, the  supposition,  adopted  to  account  for  the 
deviations  in  question,  has  lost  its  chief  support.  Ex- 
amples of  inaccuracy  may  indeed  be  discovered  in  ev- 
ery writer,  whether  ancient  or  modern.  But  we  are 
only  concerned  with  the  general  practice  of  the  Fa- 
thers :  we  only  want  to  know,  whether  we  may  in 
general,  or  upon  the  whole,  conclude  from  their  quo- 
tations to  what  was  contained  in  the  manuscripts, 
from  which  they  quoted.  When  we  meet  with  quo- 
tations from  our  English  Bible  in  the  writings  of 
English  Divines,  we  in  general  consider  their  quota- 
tions as  fair  representations  of  our  English  text, 
though  examples  of  inaccuracy  might  be  easily  pro- 
duced, arising  either  from  their  being  incorrectly  re- 
memberedj  or  incorrectly  transcribed.  In  like  manner, 
when  we  meet  with  quotations  from  the  Greek  Bible, 
whether  of  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Greek  Fathers,  there  appears  to  be  no  rea- 
son for  our  refusing  to  consider  those  quotations  as 
fair  representations  of  their  respective  copies  of  the 
Greek  text,  unless  particular  circumstances  in  partic- 
ular examples  interfere  to  warrant  our  making  an  ex- 
ception. We  must  likewise  recollect,  that  the  Greek 
Fathers  were  frequently  engaged  in  controversy,  which 
rendered  accuracy  in  quotation  peculiarly  necessary : 
for  neglect  on  this  point,  which  could  not  fail  to  be 
detected,  would  immediately  have  put  arms  into  the 
hands  of  their  adversaries.     If  Justin  Martyr  in  his 


LECTURE  IX.  37 

Dialogue  with  Trypho,  a  work  written  to  convince 
the  Jews  that  Jesus  was  tlie  Messiah,  had  been  care- 
less in  his  quotations  from  the  Greek  Bible,  the  detec- 
tion of  their  inaccuracy  would  have  defeated  the  very 
object  he  had  in  view.  Again  if  Origen,  in  his  An- 
swer to  Celsus,  or  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  his  Reply 
to  Julian  the  Apostate,  had  been  incorrect  in  their 
quotations  from  the  Greek  Testament,  what  greater 
triumph  could  the  enemies  of  Christianity  m  thos6 
ages  have  desired,  than  the  exposure  of  such  mis- 
takes. With  respect  to  Justin  Martyr,  I  once  had  oc- 
casion to  collate  his  quotations  from  the  Septuagint 
with  the  text  of  the  Codex  Vaticanus.  The  result  of 
this  collation,  with  observations  on  the  subject,  is 
contained  in  a  publication,  which  was  printed  seven 
years  ago  at  Cambridge.  At  present  therefore  I  shall 
only  observe  that  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Septu- 
agint were  found  to  agree  much  more  closely  with 
the  Codex  Vaticanus,  than  the  Codex  Vaticanus  itself 
agrees  with  another  manuscript  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  is  next  in  importance  to  it,  the  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus. 

No  man  has  placed  the  subject  of  quotations  from 
the  Greek  Testament  in  so  clear  a  light  as  Griesbach, 
first  in  the  treatise  mentioned  in  the  preceding  Lec- 
ture, De  Codicibus  quatuor  Evangelwrun  Origenianis  ; 
and  secondly  in  his  work  entitled,  Curce  in  historiam 
textus  Graci  epistolarum  Paulinarum^  published  at 
Halle  in  1777.  The  Introduction  of  Michaelis  may 
likewise  be  consulted  in  the  chapter  appropriated  to 
this  subject,  though  it  is  less  excellent  than  the  chap- 


58  LECTURE  IX. 

ters  which  relate  to  the  Greek  manuscripts,  and  the 
ancient  versions.  With  respect  to  the  Fathers  in 
general,  the  most  information  comprised  in  a  small 
compass  is  afforded  in  the  Bibliolheca  patnstica^  by 
Dr.  John  George  Walch,  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Je- 
na, who  published  it  there  in  1770  in  one  volume  oc- 
tavo. It  relates  to  the  lives,  the  writings,  the  edi- 
tions, and  the  various  uses  of  the  Fathers,  and  like- 
wise enumerates  the  authors,  who  have  explained  the 
particular  subjects  of  inquiry.  A  more  detailed  and 
copious  account  of  their  writings  is  contained  in 
Cave's  Historia  Literaria,  of  which  the  best  edition 
was  printed  at  Oxford  in  1740  and  1743  in  two  vol- 
umes folio.  Of  the  Greek  Fathers  the  most  ample 
account  is  given  in  the  seventh,  eighth,  ninth,  and 
tenth  volumes  of  the  new  edition  o^  Fabricii  Bibliothe- 
ca  Gneca,  The  editor  of  this  work.  Professor  Harles 
of  F.rlangen,  has  given  a  short  but  useful  account  of 
the  Greek  Fathers  in  the  last  volume  of  his  Introduc- 
tio  in  Historiarn  Linguce  Grcecce^  which  was  publisheej 
at  Altenburg  in  Saxony  in  1795.  Of  the  writings  of 
the  Latin  Fathers,  and  of  the  different  editions  of 
them,  the  most  ample  and  the  most  accurate  account 
is  given  in  a  work  printed  at  Leipzig  in  1792  and 
1794  in  two  large  octavos,  entitled  Bihliotheca  histori- 
co-literaria  Patrum  Latinorum^  by  Mr.  Schoenemann, 
one  of  the  librarians  at  the  University  of  Goettingen. 
Whoever  is  desirous  of  entering  into  the  controversy 
on  the  quotations  of  the  Fathers  will  find  every  thing 
that  can  be  said  against  them  in  a  work  written  by 
Daille,  a  French  Protestant  Clergyman,  which  was 


LECTURE  IX.  39 

published  at  Geneva,  first  in  French  in  1632,  and  af- 
terwards in  Latin,  at  several  times,  by  the  title  Dal- 
Iseus  de  usu  Patrum.  And  every  thing,  which  can 
be  said  in  favour  of  the  Fathers  is  contained  in  the 
following  work,  Cast'i  Innncentis  Ansaldi^  Ordinis  PrcS' 
dicatorum,  de  authenticis  sacrarum  scripturarum  apud 
sanctos  Patres  lectionibus,  libri  duo ;  which  was  pub- 
lished at  V^erona  in  1747  in  one  volume  quarto. 

Before  I  dismiss  the  subject  of  quotations,  I  must 
notice  the  difference  in  the  degrees  of  evidence  afford- 
ed by  the  Fathers,  according  to  the  language  in  which 
they  wrote  :  and  it  is  the  more  necessary,  as  there  are 
several  writers,  especially  in  England,  who  have  not 
perceived  the  difference.  Direct  testimony  to  the  au- 
thenticity of  readings  in  the  Greek  Testament,  is  af- 
forded only  by  the  Greek  Fathers,  who  alone  quoted 
the  words  of  the  original.  The  quotations  of  the 
Latin  Fathers  were  taken  from  the  Latin  versiofi,  and 
consequently  bear  immediafe  evidence  to  this  version^ 
or  to  its  readings  as  contained  in  their  copies  of  it.  If 
therefore  we  have  reason,  in  any  particular  place,  to 
believe  that  this  version  has  been  altered  or  interpolat- 
ed, the  circumstance  that  Latin  writers  may  be  found 
who  agree  with  it  in  that  place  in  opposition  to  the 
Greek  manuscripts,  is  evidence  of  no  value  whatsoev- 
er. For  it  is  manifest,  that  wherever  a  version  is  cor- 
rupt,  the  reading  produced  from  it  cannot  be  genu- 
ine. 

The  three  grand  sources  of  various  readings  to 
the  Greek  Testament  having  been  thus  explained, 
with  reference  to  the  principal  authors,  it  is  necessan,* 


60  LECTURE  IX. 

to  take  some  notice  of  another  source,  namely  emen- 
dation from  conjecture.  Where  a  passage  is  mani- 
festly faulty,  and  we  have  only  one  copy  of  the  work, 
or  where,  if  we  have  more,  they  agree  in  the  erratum, 
we  have  no  other  means,  by  which  we  can  even  at- 
tempt to  restore  the  genuine  reading,  than  conjecture. 
But  in  the  Greek  Testament  our  means  of  correction 
from  authority  are  so  ample,  that  conjecture  is  unne- 
cessary :  and,  if  unnecessary,  it  is  injurious,  especial- 
ly in  a  work,  where,  if  the  words  might  be  altered 
from  conjecture,  a  door  would  be  opened  to  every 
species  of  corruption.  For  this  reason,  neither  Wet- 
stein  proposed,  nor  Griesbach  received,  an  alteration 
of  words  from  conjecture.  But  though  it  is  not  al- 
lowable in  the  Greek  Testament  to  alter  words  from 
conjecture,  we  are  at  full  liberty  to  apply  it,  in  regard 
to  the  stops.  For  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  afford 
no  evidence  on  this  head  :  and  where  stops  are  added, 
as  in  modern  manuscripts  and  printed  editions,  they 
are  founded  only  on  the  judgment  of  the  writers  or 
editors,  which  we  are  at  liberty  to  exercise,  as  well  as 
they.  In  this  respect  the  critical  conjectures,  annex- 
ed by  Mr.  Bowyer  to  his  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, and  afterwards  published  with  considerable  ad- 
ditions in  a  quarto  volume  in  1782,  are  of  real  value. 
The  remarks  above-made  in  respect  to  the  stops,  ap- 
ply also  for  the  most  part,  to  accents  and  marks  of  as- 
piration. 

It  now  only  remains  to  mention  the  principal  au- 
thors, who  have  written  on  the  utility^  and  the  applica- 
tion of  various  readings.     The  first  author,  who  wrote 


LECTURE  IX.  64 

systematically  on  this  subject,  was  Professor  Pfliff,  of 
the  University  of  Tiibingen  in  Suabia,  whose  Dis^er- 
tatio  critica  degenuinis  Novi  Testamenti  lectionibus  was 
printed  at  Amsterdam  in  an  octavo  volume  in  1709. 
It  was  published  at  the  commencement  of  the  contro- 
versy about  the  various  readings  to  Mill's  Greek 
Testament :  and  its  principal  object  was  to  confute 
two  opposite  and  equally  false  positions,  the  one  main- 
tained by  the  adversaries  of  our  religion,  that  the  va- 
rious readings  undermined  the  authority  of  the  text, 
the  other  maintained  by  its  well-meaning  but  injudi- 
cious friends,  who  argued  for  the  perfection  of  the 
Elzevir  text.  The  admirable  work  of  Bentley, 
which  was  published  four  years  afterwards  on  this 
subject,  has  been  noticed  in  a  former  Lecture.  A- 
nother  systematic  treatise  on  the  subject  of  various 
readings  is  the  Tractatio  critica  de  variis  Lectionibus 
J^ovi  Testamenti  caute  colligendis  et  dijiidicandis,  pub- 
lished at  Halle  in  a  quarto  volume  in  1749,  by  Dr. 
Christian  Benedict  Michaelis,  father  to  the  author  of 
the  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.  This  work 
goes  more  into  the  detail  of  the  subject ;  it  gives 
rules  for  the  application  of  the  readings,  according  to 
their  several  sources;  and  is  of  particular  value  in 
respect  to  the  readings  of  the  oriental  versions.  To 
the  second  volume  of  Wetstein's  Greek  Testament, 
which  was  printed  three  years  afterwards,  were  an- 
nexed the  Aniinadversiones  et  Cautiones,  which  were 
mentioned  in  a  former  Lecture,  and  were  re~ publish- 
ed by  Dr.  Semler  at  Halle  in  1766,  under  the  title, 
IVetstenii  libelli  ad  crisin  atque  interpretationem  A''ovi 
9 


9%  LECTURE  IX. 

4. 

Testamentu  Tht  Apparatus  Criticus,  which  uccora-' 
panied  the  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  by  Benge- 
lius,  has  likewise  been  separately  pubhshed  in  a  quar- 
to volume  in  1763  with  considerable  additions. — 
Much  valuable  information  may  be  derived  from  each 
of  these  writers,  though  it  cannot  be  expected,  that 
they  should  be  unanimous  on  every  point.  The  cri- 
ticism of  the  Greek  Testament  has  made  such  rapid 
advances  within  the  last  sixty  years,  that  several  posi- 
tions have  been  found  untenable,  which  had  been 
adopted  without  reserve,  while  others  have  been 
adopted,  of  which  the  earlier  writers  were  uninform- 
ed. To  obtain  a  perfect  knowledge  of  it  in  its  pres- 
ent and  most  correct  state,  we  must  study,  again  and 
again,  the  Prolegomena  to  Griesbach's  Greek  Testa- 
ment. Nor  should  we  neglect,  if  we  are  able  to  pro- 
cure it,  Griesbach's  Commentarms  criticus  in  textum 
Gracum  Novi  Testament^  of  which  the  first  Part  was 
published  at  Jena  in  1798.  Whether  this  work  has 
been  continued,  I  am  unable  from  the  present  inter- 
rupted communication  with  Germany  to  declare. 
But,  as  far  as  it  goes,  it  admirably  elucidates  the  crit- 
icism of  the  Greek  Testament  in  every  passage,  and 
clearly  explains  the  mode,  in  which  Griesbach's  sys- 
tem must  be  applied. 

Lastly,  let  it  be  observed  of  verbal  criticism,  that 
the  value  of  tlie  labour,  which  has  been  employed  in 
collecting  various  readings,  depends  neither  on  the 
greatness  of  their  number,  nor  on  the  diversity  of 
their  meaning.  If  the  readings  are  numerous,  which 
alter  the  sense,  they  afford  the  means  of  correction,  in 


LECTURE  IX.  «0 

proportion  as  it  is  wanted.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
such  readings  are  few  in  number,  the  discovery,  that 
they  are  so,  is  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost  of  that  discov- 
ery. 

Having  thus  exhausted  the  criticism  of  the  JVew 
Testament,*  I  shall  proceed  in  the  next  Lecture  to 
the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament. 

•  As  I  did  not  menlion  in  the  preceding  Lecture  Dr.  Knapp's  edi- 
tion of  the  Greek  Testament,  which  was  published  at  Halle  in  1797,  in 
one  volume  octavo,  and  this  edilion,  as  well  as  Griesbach's,  contains  a 
revision  of  the  Elzevir  text,  it  may  appear  to  be  a  neglect,  if  it  is  left 
whoUy  unnoticed,  though  it  is  very  little  kn<j\\  n  in  this  countiy.  The 
date  of  the  title-page  shews,  that  it  was  published  a  year  after  the^rsf 
volume  of  Giiesbach's  last  edition,  and  nine  years  before  the  second  ; 
consequently  that  the  learned  editor  could  avail  himself  of  Gi-iesbach's 
reseaiches  us  far  as  tlie  end  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  no  further.  Nor 
are  any  authorities  quoted  in  this  edition,  either  for  the  readings  intro- 
duced in  the  text  (which  are  not  distinguished,  as  in  Griesbach's  edif 
tion,  by  a  difference  of  character,  J  or  for  that  selection  of  readings, 
which  the  editor  thought  worthy  of  notice  in  the  margin.  This  state- 
ment  is  not  intended  as  a  censure,  brevity  being  necessary  for  the  edi- 
tor's object,  which  was  to  furnish  the  German  students  with  a  cheap 
pocket  edition.  But  for  the  purposes  of  criticism,  Griesbach's  edition 
musy.  remain  the  standard  edition. 

An  account  of  re-impressions,  or  of  publications  copied  from  Gries- 
bach's last  edition,  though  it  enters  into  the  province  of  the  bibliogra- 
pher, has  no  place  in  a  history  of  tlie  Greek  text. 

Dr.  White's  edition  of  Uie  common  text  (Oxford  1808,  in  two  vol- 
umes octavo,)  accompanied,  as  well  with  the  readings,  which  Gries- 
bach  thought  only  equal  to  tlie  common  text,  as  with  those,  which 
Griesbach  thought  decidedly  preferable,  and  therefore  adopted  in  his 
own,  will  more  properly  come  under  consideration  in  the  third  branch 
of  Divinity,  when  we  inquire  into  the  integrity  of  the  Greek  text. 


LECTURE  X. 


Xo  ascertain  the  accuracy  of  the  Hebrew  text  in 
the  Old  Testament,  we  must  proceed  by  a  method 
similar  to  that,  which  was  applied  to  the  Greek  text 
in  the  New  Testament.  We  must  consider  the  caus- 
es^ which  have  produced  the  variations  in  the  Hebrew 
manuscripts,  and  then  the  remedieSy  which  have  been 
employed  to  correct  them. 

As  in  the  Greek  Testament  so  in  the  Hebrew  Bi- 
ble the  various  readings  have  arisen,  partly  from  acci- 
dental, partly  from  designed  alteration.  Under  the 
former  head  may  be  reckoned,  in  the  first  place,  the 
casual  omission,  addition,  exchange,  or  transposition, 
of  letters,  syllables,  and  words,  which  no  transcriber, 
however  careful,  can  wholly  avoid.  The  eye  is  fre- 
quently deceived  by  a  similarity  in  the  form  of  differ- 
ent letters.  This  cause  has  operated  more  in  the  He- 
brew Bible,  than  in  the  Greek  Testament :  for  the 
Hebrew  letters  resemble  each  other  more  than  the 
Greek  letters.  At  one  time  the  whole  difference  con- 
sists in  the  acuteness  or  obtuseness  of  an  angle ;  at 
other  times,  either  on  the  length,  or  the  straitness  of  a 


LECTURE  X.  60 

line,  distinctions  so  minute,  that  even  when  the  letters 
are  perfect,  mistakes  will  sometimes  happen,  and  still 
more  frequently  when  they  are  inaccurately  formed, 
or  are  partially  effliced.  In  fact  this  is  one  of  the 
most  fruitful  sources  of  error  in  the  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts, as  will  appear  to  every  one,  who  takes  only  a 
cursory  view  of  Dr.  Kennicott's  Bible. 

Again,  as  likeness  of  yor;;2  occasions  mistakes  in 
reading,  so  likeness  of  sound  occasions  mistakes  in 
hearing,  when  a  copyist  writes  as  another  dictates. 
And  this  cause  is  likewise  more  powerful  in  Hebrew 
than  in  Greek,  on  account  of  the  gutturals,  which  are 
less  distinguishable,  than'  the  sounds  of  any  other 
class.  Another  kind  of  exchange  from  dictation, 
which  is  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew,  was  the  custom  of 
reading,  in  certain  cases,  differently  from  what  was 
written.  For  instance,  the  word  Jehovah,  which  ex- 
presses the  Being,  the  Essence,  and  the  Eternity  of 
the  Deity,  was  considered  by  the  Jews  as  a  word  too 
sacred  for  human  utterance  :  and  therefore,  whenever 
they  met  with  this  word  in  the  Bible,  they  read  for  it 
another  word,  expressive  not  of  God,  but  of  Lord, 
Hence  the  latter  is  frequently  found  in  one  Hebrew 
manuscript,  when  the  former  is  found  in  another. 
Hence  also  in  the  Septuagint  the  word  Jehovah  is  nev- 
er expressed  by  Qeog,  but  uniformly  by  Kuf/o?. 

Other  accidental  variations  arose  from  what  is  call- 
ed the  homcEoteleuton,  or  the  recurrence  of  the  same 
word  after  a  short  interval,  which  may  occasion  the 
omission  of  the  words  which  lie  between.  Some- 
times abbreviations,  sometimes  numerical  marks  were 


P  LECTURE  X. 

falsely  decyphered :  at  other  times,  if  the  words  of 
the  copied  manuscripts  were  written  without  intervals, 
they  were  improperly  divided.  Lastly,  as  it  was  not 
uncommon  to  add  letters  at  the  end  of  a  line  in  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  in  order  to  fill  up  the  space 
where  it  was  too  small  for  the  following  word,  (it  not 
being  usual  to  write  Hebrew  words  partly  in  one  line 
partly  in  another)  those  supplemeritat y  letters  were 
sometimes  mistaken  for  letters  of  the  text,  especially 
if  they  were  such,  as  were  capable  of  representing 
some  Hebrew  word. 

It  appears  then,  that  the  causes  of  accidental  varia- 
tion must  have  operated  more  powerfully  in  the  trans- 
cribing of  Hebrew,  than  in  the  transcribing  of  Greek 
manuscripts.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  reason  to 
believe,  that  the  designed  alterations,  whic  h  have  been 
made  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  are 
less  numerous,  than  the  similar  alterations,  which  have 
been  made  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament, 
Indeed  it  is  obvious  from  Dr.  Kennicott's  collation, 
that  such  alterations  have  been  inconsiderable  since 
the  introduction  of  the  Masora.  But  as  no  circum- 
spection could  wholly  prevent  the  liberties,  which  for 
various  reasons  transcribers  were  inclined  to  take, 
those  reasons,  or  causes  of  alteration,  must  be  dis- 
tinctly examined.  And  this  examination  is  the  more 
necessary,  as  before  the  introduction  of  the  Masora, 
which  cannot  be  dated  higher  than  the  fourth  or  fifth 
century,  those  causes  had  nothing  to  counteract  them. 
It  is  true,  that  the  oldest  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts, 
now  extant,  are  younger  by  some  centuries,  than  the 


I 


LECTURE  X.  67 

Masora.  But  as  these  must  have  been  copied  from 
more  ancient  manuscripts,  and  those  again  from  man- 
uscripts, which  were  written  before  the  learned  Jews 
of  Tiberias,  or  the  Masorets,  as  they  are  called  from 
the  work  which  they  established,  had  erected  a  guard 
against  future  innovation,  the  effects  of  previous  alter- 
ation must  have  still  continued  to  be  partially  felt,  and 
consequently  must  have  been  transmitted  to  the  pres- 
ent  age. 

Let  it  not  however  be  imagined,  that  the  altera- 
tions, of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  were  intentional 
corruptions  of  the  sacred  text,  or,  in  other  words,  alter- 
ations introduced  with  the  consciousness,  that  they 
■were  corruptions.  Such  conduct  were  incompatible 
with  that  profound  veneration,  which  the  Jews  in  ev- 
er)' age  have  entertained  for  the  Hebrew  scriptures. 
It  is  true  that  such  conduct  has  been  ascribed  to  them. 
The  charge  originated  with  some  of  the  early  Fathers 
in  their  controversies  with  the  Jews,  who  sometimes 
reproached  their  Christian  adversaries  with  producing 
passages  from  the  Greek  Bible,  which  differed  from 
the  Hebrew.  In  such  cases  the  Fathers  should  have 
critically  examined  the  words,  both  of  the  Hebrew  and 
of  the  Greek :  for  an  ancient  translation  may^  and 
sometimes  does  retain  the  genuine  reading  of  a  pas- 
sage, where  modern  copies  of  the  original  have  lost 
it.  But  no  such  examination  appears  to  have  taken 
place  by  those,  who  were  the  most  strenuous  in  accus- 
ing the  Jews.  Indeed  few  of  them  were  capable  of 
the  examination :  and  they  charged  their  adversaries 
with  wilful  corruption,  because  they  had  nothing  else 


08  LECTURE  X. 

to  reply.  Now  accusations  made  without  proof,  are 
entitled  to  no  credit.  Jerom,  who  of  all  the  fathers 
was  i)erhaps  the  best  judge  of  this  subject,  was  cer- 
tainly of  opinion,  that  the  Jews  had  not  corrupted  the 
Hebrew  scriptures  :  for  in  contradistinction  to  the 
Septuagint  he  calls  the  Hebrew  Bible  Feritas  Hebrai- 
ca  :  and  when  he  made  a  new  translation,  he  translat- 
ed, not  from  the  Greek,  but  from  the  Hebrew.  Nor 
was  Origen,  notwithstanding  some  expressions,  which 
seem  to  indicate  the  contrary,  of  a  different  opinion 
from  Jerom. 

The  alterations  therefore,  of  which  we  are  now 
speaking,  are  such  as  have  taken  place  from  erroneous 
judgment,  from  a  false  opinion  in  the  transcribers,  that 
they  were  supplying  defects,  or  correcting  mistakes. 
They  chiefly  arose  from  the  custom  of  ^vriting  notes 
in  the  margin  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  which  notes 
were  in  subsequent  copies  transferred  into  the  text. 
These  notes  were  of  various  kinds.  Sometimes^  if  a 
city  mentioned  in  the  Bible  had  in  the  course  of  ages 
changed  its  name,  the  new  name  was  added  in  the 
margin  of  the  passage.  At  another  time  if  an  ancient 
name  was  still  preserved,  a  note  was  added  to  express, 
that  the  place  was  so  called  to  that  day.  At  other 
times  observations  were  made,  which  related  to  histo- 
ry or  chronology.  Annotations  of  all  these  kinds 
may  be  still  traced  in  the  Pentateuch.  They  have 
been  quoted  indeed  by  the  adversaries  of  our  religion 
for  a  different  purpose  :  and,  as  such  readings  mani- 
festly betray  a  later  hand,  than  that  of  Moses,  it  has 
been  inferred,  that  the  books,  which  contain  them,  are 


LECTURE  X.  M 

furious.  But  such  readings  may  be  explained,  as 
marginal  notes  removed  into  the  text :  and  if  the  ar- 
guments for  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  are 
conclusive,  they  must  be  explained  in  that  manner. 

Other  marginal  annotations  were  drawn  from  par- 
allel passages,  being  added,  either  to  supply  the  short- 
er description  from  the  longer,  or  to  explain  a  diffi- 
cult by  an  easy  passage.  Indeed  explanatory  notes 
appear  to  have  been  added  from  various  sources,  tak- 
en sometimes  from  Chaldee  paraphrases,  at  other 
times  from  commentaries,  at  other  times  again  from 
those  allegorical  interpretations,  to  which  the  Jews 
gave  the  title  of  Medrash.  Now  such  annotations 
being  sometimes  mistaken,  especially  by  ignorant 
transcribers,  for  parts  of  the  text,  which  had  been  ac- 
cidentally omitted,  and  afterwards  supplied  in  the 
margin,  were  in  the  next  copy  transferred,  as  was 
supposed,  to  their  proper  places. — Or  readings  of  this 
description  might  sometimes  find  their  way  into  the 
text,  even  without  the  intervention  of  a  marginal  note. 

Lastly,  there  is  a  source  of  various  readings  in  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts,  which  appears  to  have  been 
equally  productive  with  all  the  other  sources  put  to- 
gether, namely  the  difference  in  the  mode  of  writing 
certain  Hebrew  words.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the 
letters  Aleph,  Vau,  and  J-od  are  denominated  matres 
lectionis,  from  their  utility  in  instructing  the  reader  of 
an  unpointed  manuscript  how  to  pronounce  the  words, 
in  which  those  letters  are  contained.  But  after  the 
introduction  of  the  vowel  points,  the  letters  Vau  and 
Jod  became  less  necessary,  and  they  were  considered 
10 


f^  '  LECTURE  X. 

chiefly  as  props,  or  fulcra  (as  they  are  called)  to  those 
points,  with  which  they  are  usualh  accompanied. 
When  manuscripts  therefore  were  written  with  poi  <ts, 
those  letters  were  sometimes  inserted,  sometimes 
omitted,  and  apparently  at  the  discretion  of  the  copy- 
ist. Where  they  are  inserted,  the  words  are  said  to 
be  plene  scripta :  \\here  they  are  omitted,  the  words 
are  said  to  be  defective  scripta.  Now  variations  of 
this  kind  are  only  various  modes  of  writing  the  same 
wordy  and  seem  to  be  no  more  entitled  to  a  place 
among  various  readings,  than  the  orthographical  dif- 
ferences in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  which  neither 
Walton,  nor  Mill,  nor  Wetstein,  nor  Griesbach  have 
thought  worthy  of  notice.  But  as  the  cases  of  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  manuscripts  are  not  exactly 
parallel,  as  examples  7naif  occur  in  which  the  above- 
mentioned  fullness  or  defectiveness  has  resulted  from 
some  other  cause,  tlian  the  discretion  of  a  transcriber 
in  regard  to  a  mater  lectionis,  the  variations  in  ques- 
tion must  not  be  wholly  disregarded,  though  more  at- 
tention has  certainly  been  shewn  to  them,  than  they 
deserve. 

The  principal  causes,  which  produced  the  varia- 
tions in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  having  been  thus 
explained,  we  must  now  examine  the  means,  which 
have  been  adopted  to  obtain  a  correct  edition  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  In  our  researches  on  this  subject  we 
must  be  contented  with  much  less  information,  than 
w^e  were  able  to  obtain  in  our  similar  researches  on  the 
Greek  Testament.  The  manuscripts^  which  were 
used  by  the  early  editors  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and 


LECTURE  X.  V± 

the  fnodesy  in  which  those  editors  employed  their  ma- 
terials, are  equally  unknown  to  us :  nor  have  we  suffi- 
cient dat^  to  ascertain  the  influence  of  preceding  on 
subsequent  editions.     We  are  indeed  amply  provided 
"with  catalogues  of  Hebrew  Bibles,  which  determine 
their  chronological  order  :    but  how  far  the  editors 
were  governed  by  their  manuscripts,  how  far  they 
copied  from  their  predecessors,  what  rules  they  adopt- 
ed in  the  choice  of  their  readings,  why  some  of  them 
preferred  a  marginal,  where  others  chose  a  textual 
reading,  the  editors  themselves  have  not  informed  us, 
and  it  is  not  in  our  power  to  learn.     To  trace  there- 
fore the  progress  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as  we  traced  the 
progress  of  the   Greek  text,  throughout  its  several 
stages,  from  edition  to  edition,  is  wholly  impractica- 
ble.    All,  that  can  be  attempted,  is  to  mention  in  the 
first  place  such  of  the  early  editions,  as  in  a  critical 
history  are  most  entitled  to  attention,  and  then  to  con- 
sider the  steps,  which  have  been  taken  toward  the  for- 
mation of  a  critical  apparatus. 

The  first  edition  of  the  xvhole  Hebrew  Bible  was 
printed  in  148S  at  Soncino,  a  small  town  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Cremona.  It  is  at  present  so  scarce,  that 
only  nine  copies  of  it  are  known,  one  of  which  is  pre- 
served in  the  library  of  Exeter  College,  at  Oxford. 
The  next  edition  of  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible  was 
published  in  1494  at  Brescia,  and  is  remarkable  for 
being  the  edition,  from  which  Luther  made  his  Ger- 
man translation.  The  edition,  which  in  the  next 
place  deserves  our  attention  is  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  of  which  the  parts  containing  the  Hebrew 


72  LECTURE  X. 

Bible  were  finished  in  1517.  In  1518  Daniel  Bom- 
berg  published  at  Venice  two  editions  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  the  one  in  quarto,  the  other  in  large  folio.  The 
latter  was  conducted  by  Felix  Pratensis :  and  as  it 
contains  the  Hebrew  text  accompanied  witli  the  Ma- 
sora,  it  is  called  Bomberg's  first  Rabbinical  Bible. 
The  second  edition  of  it,  which  is  more  correct,  was 
printed  in  1525  under  the  direction  of  Jacob  Ben 
Hajim,  who  had  the  reputation  of  being  profoundly 
learned  in  the  Masora,  and  other  branches  of  Jewish 
erudition. 

The  Brescia  edition  of  1494,  the  Complutensian 
edition  of  1517,  and  the  last- mentioned  Bomberg's 
edition  of  1525,  are  the  three  editions,  which  were 
principally  used  in  the  printing  of  the  subsequent  edi- 
tions. 

The  editions  hitherto  mentioned  were  all  print- 
ed under  the  inspection  of  Jews,  or  of  Jewish  Con- 
verts. But  in  1534  Sebastain  Miinster,  a  learned 
German,  who  was  Professor,  first  at  Heidelberg,  and 
afterwards  at  Basel,  commenced  an  edition  of  the  He- 
brew Bible,  which  was  finished  in  the  following  year, 
at  the  office  of  Frobenius,  where  Erasmus  about  the 
same  period  was  engaged  in  printing  his  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament.  In  1536  Sebastian  Miinster 
published  a  second  edition,  accompanied,  not,  as  the 
first  edition  was,  with  a  Latin  translation,  but  with 
parts  of  the  Masora,  and  various  critical  annotations. 
Three  years  afterwards  Robert  Stephens  began  his 
quarto  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  which  was  finish- 
ed in  1543  :  and  in  the  two  following  years  he  printed 


LECTURE  X.  78 

his  duodecimo  edition.  In  1569  the  Antwerp  Poly- 
glot began  to  be  printed,  of  which  the  four  first  vol- 
umes contain  the  Hebrew  Bible,  accompanied  with  all 
the  ancient  versions,  which  were  then  known.  In 
1587  was  printed  at  Hamburg  the  edition  of  Elias 
Hutter.  In  1611  the  celebrated  John  Buxtorf  printed 
at  Basel  his  octavo  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  :  in 

1619  he  published  his  great  Rabbinical  Bible :  and  in 

1620  he  published  his  Tiberias,  which  was  intended 
to  illustrate  the  Masora,  and  other  additions  to  his 
great  Bible. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  a  period,  which  forms  an 
epocha  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Hitherto 
it  was  commonly  supposed,  that  all  the  copies  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  as  well  manuscript  as  printed,  contain- 
ed the  same  text  with  little  or  no  variation.  It  is  true 
that  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  had  the  marginal  words  of 
the  Masora,  with  references  to  the  correspondent 
words  of  the  text.  But  of  these  marginal  words  such 
fanciful  notions  were  then  entertained,  as  prevented 
their  application  to  any  critical  purpose.  We  know 
at  present  that  they  are  various  readings  to  the  He- 
brew Bible :  and  Dr.  Kennicott  relates  in  his  Disser- 
tatio  generalis,  that  among  a  thousand  of  them  (as 
printed  by  Van  der  Hooght)  there  were  only  fourteen, 
which  were  not  found  in  the  text  of  some  one  of  the 
Hebrew  manuscripts  collated  for  his  edition.  They 
are  various  readings  therefore  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
term :  they  resulted  from  ancient  collations  of  He- 
brew manuscripts,  begun  probably  before  the  age  of 
the  Masora,  though  first  recorded,  as  well  as  continu- 


r#  LECTURE  X. 

ed  and  augmented,  in  that  work.  Indeed  the  text  it- 
self, as  regulated  by  the  learned  Jews  of  Tiberias,  was 
probably  the  result  of  a  collation  of  manuscripts.  But 
as  those  Hebrew  critics  were  cautious  of  introducinj^ 
too  many  corrections  in  the  text,  they  noted  in  the 
margins  of  their  manuscripts,  or  in  their  critical  col- 
lections, such  various  readings,  derived  from  other 
manuscripts  either  by  themselves  or  by  their  prede- 
cessors, as  appeared  to  be  worthy  of  attention.  This 
is  the  real  origin  of  those  marginal  or  masoretic  read- 
in£rs,  which  we  find  in  many  editions  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible.  But  the  propensity  of  the  later  Jews  to  seek 
mystical  meanings  in  the  plainest  facts,  induced  grad- 
ually the  belief,  that  both  textual  and  marginal  read- 
ings proceeded  from  the  sacred  writers  themselves, 
and  that  the  latter  were  ti'ansmitted  to  posterity  by  oral 
tradition,  as  conveying  some  mysterious  application  of 
the  Tvritten  words.  They  were  regarded  theretore  as 
materials,  not  of  criticism^  but  of  interpretation. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  extraordinary, 
that  the  Masoretic  readings  suggested  not  the  notion 
of  a  diversity  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  :  it  is  not 
extraordinary,  that  Elias  Levita,  a  learned  Jew  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  should  say,  (as 
Buxtorf  has  translated  the  Rabbinic  original.)  "  Post 
lahorem  ilium,  quern  prastiterunt  Masoreta^  impossibile 
est  ut  ceciderit,  vel  cadere  possit  mutatio  aut  depravatio 
quisdam  ulh  modo  in  ullos  libros  biblicos  .*"  Nor  is  it 
extraordinary  that  Buxtorf,  who  quotes  this  passage 
in  the  second  chapter  of  his  Tiberias,  should  confirm 
it  by  saying  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,  Omnium  lib^ 


LECTURE  X.  Vf 

rorum,  qui  vel  in  Asid^  vel  in  Africd^  ve^  in  Eurofj& 
sunt,  sine  uiia  discrepantia,  comonans  harmonia  cerni- 
tur.  Elias  Hutter,  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition, 
which  was  pubUshed  more  than  thirty  years  before 
Biixtorf's  Tiberias,  had  indeed  declared,  that  the  edi- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  as  printed  by  Bomberg, 
by  Stephens,  and  in  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  differed 
from  each  other  in  several  thousand  places,  and  more- 
over that  the  differences  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts 
were  still  greater.  But  either  Buxtorf  never  read 
this  Preface,  or  his  attachment  to  the  Masora  prevent- 
ed him  from  attending  to  its  evidence.  He  believed 
thorefore  in  2i  perfect  uniformity  of  the  Hebrew  man- 
uscripts :  and  this  perfect  uniformity  was  supposed  to 
have  uninterruptedly  existed  from  the  times,  when 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  where  severally  writ- 
ten. It  was  likewise  the  common  opinion  in  the  age 
of  Buxtorf,  to  which  his  great  authority  materially 
contributed,  not  only  that  the  Hebrew  letters  had  de- 
scend-^d  unaltered  from  the  time  of  Moses,  but  that 
the  vowel  points,  with  all  their  gradations  and  refine- 
ments, were  coeval  with  the  letters  themselves. 

But  soon  after  the  publication  of  Buxtorf's  Tibe- 
rias a  discovery  was  made,  which  gave  a  new  turn  to 
the  sentiments  of  the  learned,  not  only  in  respect  to 
the  Hebrew  letters  and  points,  but  in  regard  to  the 
text  itself.  It  had  been  long  known,  that  the  Samar- 
itans, originally  descended  from  the  ten  tribes  who  re- 
volted in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  and  still  existing  as 
a  separate  sect  in  Samaria  and  its  neighbourhood, 
possessed  the  five  books  of  Moses  in  a  form  peculiar 


74  LECTURE  X. 

to  themselves.  But  from  the  time  of  Eusebius  and 
of  Jerom,  who  have  noticed  this  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, no  European  appears  to  have  seen  it  till  the  be- 
ginning of  the  seventeenth  century,  when  Pietro  della 
Valle,  during  his  travels  in  the  East,  obtained  not  on- 
ly a  copy  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  itsel/l  but  also 
a  translation  of  it  into  the  Samaritan  language.  The 
latter  he  took  with  him  to  Rome  :  the  former  he  sent 
to  Harlaeus  de  Sancy,  one  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Orato- 
ry at  Paris,  who  presented  it  in  16^0  to  the  library  of 
that  religious  house. 

No  event  in  the  history  of  literature  has  excited 
more  sensation,  than  the  discovery  of  this  Samaritan 
Pentateuch.  It  was  observed  that,  though  its  letters 
are  very  different  from  the  Hebrew,  it  contained  the 
same  Hebrew  xvoitis  as  the  common  manuscripts ;  and 
that,  though  its  text  was  in  many  places  different,  it 
manifestly  contained  the  same  work.  It  was  further 
observed,  that  its  letters  w^ere  no  where  accompanied 
with  voM'el  points.  It  was  then  considered,  that,  as 
the  Pentateuch  is  the  only  part  of  the  Bible,  which  is 
received  by  the  Samaritans,  their  copies  of  it  must 
have  been  derived,  if  not  from  those  of  their  ancestors, 
who  seceded  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  at  least  from 
some  copy,  antecedent  to  the  Babylonish  Captivity. 
For  if  their  sacred  books  had  been  received  from  the 
Jews  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  they  would  not 
have  been  confined  to  the  five  books  of  Moses.  This 
argument  was  strengthened  by  the  reflection,  that  the 
animosity  between  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans  com- 
njienced  immediately  on  the  return  of  the  former  from 


LECTURE  X-  rr 

Babylonia.  It  was  therefore  as  improbable,  that  the 
Samaritans  should  then  borrow  from  the  Jews,  as  it 
was  improbable,  that  their  forefathers  should  have  se- 
ceded without  some  copies  of  the  Law,  which  was  the 
rule  both  of  their  civil  and  of  their  religious  institu- 
tions. Finally,  as  the  Jews,  who  returned  to  Pales- 
tine at  the  expiration  of  the  captivity,  returned  with 
the  language  of  their  Chaldean  masters,  and  the  letters 
of  this  language  were  the  letters,  in  which  the  Jews 
have  written  since  that  period,  the  supposition,  that, 
with  their  language,  they  exchanged  also  their  letters, 
whik^  the  Samaritans  retained  them,  appeared  more 
probable,  than  that  the  letters  of  the  Jews  were  origin- 
ally the  same  with  those  of  the  Chaldees,  and  that  the 
exchange  took  place  on  the  part  of  the  Samaritans, 
It  was  inferred  therefore,  that  the  original  alphabet  of 
the  sacred  writinsrs  was  not  the  Chaldee  but  the  Sa- 

o 

maritan  :  and  as  the  Samaritan  letters  are  not  accom- 
panied with  points,  it  was  further  concludixl,  that  the 
*  points  wow  used  with  the  Hebrew  or  Chaldee  letters 
M;,     were  the  invention  of  a  later  age. 

Such  were  the  reflections  suggested  by  the  exam- 
ination of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  Four  years  had 
not  elapsed  from  the  arrival  of  the  copy  of  it  in  the 
Oratory  at  Paris,  when  Ludovicus  Cappellus,  He- 
brew Professor  at  the  French  Protestant  University  of 
Saumur,  composed  his  celebrated  work,  Arcanum 
punctationis  revelatum.  This  work  contains  almost 
all  the  arguments,  which  have  been  since  used  atrainst 
the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  points ;  and  they  are  stat- 
ed so  fully  and  clearly,  that  the  subject  appeared  to  be 
11 


ro  LECTURE  X. 

exhausted  in  the  first  essay  on  it.  But  as  the  opin- 
ion, that  the  Hebrew  points  \yere  of  modern  origin, 
was  likely,  when  first  advanced,  to  be  regarded  as  an 
infringement  on  the  integrity  even  of  the  text^  Cap- 
pellus  had  the  precaution  to  send  his  work  in  man- 
uscript to  be  examined  by  Buxtorf,  who  returned  it 
with  the  request,  that  it  might  not  be  printed.  Cap- 
pellus  then  sent  it  to  Erpenius,  Professor  of  the  Ori- 
ental languages  at  Leyden,  who  so  approved  of  it,  that 
with  the  permission  of  the  author  he  printed  it  at  Ley-  , 
den  in  1624.  Buxtorf  made  no  reply  to  it :  and  as 
he  died  about  five  years  afterwards,  he  left  it  to  be  an- 
swered b}^  his  son,  who  was  likewise  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Basel.  But  many  years  elapsed  before 
the  younger  Buxtorf  had  prepared  an  answer  to  Cap- 
pellus.  In  the  mean  time  Johannes  Morinus,  one  of 
the  Fathers  of  the  oratory  at  Paris,  attacked  the  anti- 
quity of  the  Hebrew  letters  in  his  Exercitationes  eC" 
clesiastic^j  printed  at  Paris  in  1631.  And  as  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  letters  appeared  more  important,  per- 
haps also  more  defensible,  than  the  antiquity  of  the 
points,  the  younger  Buxtorf  made  his  first  essay  in  a 
defence  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  entitled  Dissertatio  de 
literarum  Hebraicarum  gemiind  antiqidtate.  The  pre- 
cise year  when  this  treatise  was  Jirst  published  is  not 
known :  but  in  1645  it  received  an  answer  from  Cap- 
pellus  in  his  Diatriba  de  veris  et  antiquis  Hebrceorum 
Uteris,  in  which  Cappellus  contended,  as  Morinus  had 
already  done,  that  the  true  and  the  ancient  letters  of 
the  Hebrews  were  no  other  than  the  Samaritan.  In 
1648  the  younger  Buxtorf  made  his  reply  to  Cappel- 


LECTURE  X.  79 

lus  on  the  subject  of  the  points^  in  a  work  entitled, 
Tractatus  de  punctorum  vocalium  et  accentuum  in  libris 
Veteris  Testamenti  Hebraicis  origine,  antiguitate,  et 
authoritatey  oppositus  Arcano  punctationis  revelato  Lu- 
dovici  Cappellu  To  this  work  Cappellus  prepared  an 
answer  entitled  Arcani  punctationis  Findicice,  But  he 
died  before  the  publication  of  it :  and  his  son,  to 
whom  it  was  left  in  manuscript,  did  not  publish  it,  till 
many  years  after  the  death  also  of  his  opponent  Bux- 
torf. 

This  controversy  about  the  antiquity  of  the  He* 
brew  letters  and  points  must  be  carefully  distinguish- 
ed from  another  controversy  hereafter  to  be  mention^ 
ed,  in  which  Cappellus  and  the  younger  Buxtorf  were 
likewise  engaged,  on  the  integrity  oj  the  Hebrew 
text  :  for  the  two  controversies,  though  in  some 
measure  connected,  and  frequently  confounded,  rest 
on  totally  distinct  grounds.  In  the  opinion,  that  the 
Hebrew  or  Chaldee  character  was  not  used  by  the 
Jews  till  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  that  the 
present  system  of  vowel  points  was  introduced  in  a 
still  later  age,  the  most  distinguished  Hebrew  schol- 
ars, with  a  very  few  exceptions,  have  sided  with  Cap- 
pellus. 

From  the  controversy  on  the  letters  and  points  we 
fnust  proceed  to  the  more  important  controversy, 
which  relates  to  the  words.  Of  this  controversy,  and 
of  the  subsequent  labours  of  the  learned  to  provide  a 
critical  apparatus  for  the  purpose  of  amending  the 
Hebrew  text,  an  account  will  be  given  in  the  follow* 
ing  Lecture. 


LECTURE  XL 


vV  E  are  now  entering  on  a  question  of  much 
greater  moment,  than  the  antiquity,  either  of  the  He- 
brew points,  or  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  namely  the  in-, 
tegrity  of  the  Hebrew  text.  The  letters  may  have 
been  changed^  the  points  may  be  ncw^  yet  tlie  words 
may  have  remained  the  same. 

To  prevent  confusion  in  this  inquiry,  we  should 
previously  determine  the  meaning  of  the  expression 
"  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text^  The  text  of  an  an- 
cient author  may  be  said  to  have  preserved  its  integ- 
rity, if  it  has  descended  to  the  present  age  in  such  a 
state,  as  upon  the  -whole  the  author  gave  it.  If  we  go 
further,  and  require  a  perfect  uniformity  in  all  the 
copies  of  an  ancient  work,  before  we  will  grant,  that 
its  integrity  is  preserved,  we  require  more,  than  it  is 
possible  to  obtain  :  for  it  is  impossible  to  multiply 
•written  copies  of  a  work,  without  some  deviation  frorai 
the  author's  own  manuscript.  We  have  seen  how- 
ever that  Buxtorf,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  Tibe- 
rias, carried  his  notions  on  this  subject  so  high,  as  to 
deny  the  existence  of  variations  in  the  Hebrew  text ; 


% 


'% 


LECTURE  XI.  SI 

and  thus,  by  placing  its  integrity  on  a  false  basis^  ex- 
pobcd  it  to  the  danj^^er  of  being  questioned  upon 
grounds,  which  constitute  no  real  cause  of  impeach- 
ment. 

The  Jirst  person  who  combated  the  opinion  of 
Buxtorf  on  this  subject,  was  not  Cappellus,  but  Jo- 
hannes Morinus,  who,  as  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
Lecture,  was  a  priest  of  the  Oratory  at  Paris,  the  reli- 
gious house,  which  possessed  the  first-known  copy  of 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  Of  this  Pentateuch  Mo- 
rinus gave  a  short  account  in  the  Preface  to  his  edi- 
tion of  the  Septuagint,  which  was  printed  at  Paris  in 
1628.  He  gave  a  more  copious  account  of  it,  as  also 
of  its  translation  into  the  Samaritan  language  in  his 
Exer citation  es  ecclesiastiae  in  utrumque  Samaritano- 
rum  Pentateuchum,  published  at  Paris  in  1631,  in 
which  he  not  only  maintained  (as  related  in  the  pre- 
ceding Lecture)  that  the  Samaritan  letters  were  the 
ancient  letters  of  the  Jews,  but  also,  that  the  Samari- 
tan Pentateuch,  or  the  Pentateuch  as  written  with 
Samaritan  letters,  contains  a  more  ancient  and  accu- 
rate text  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  than  the  Hebrew 
Pentateuch,  or  the  Pentateuch  as  written  with  the 
common  Hebrew  letters.  In  1632  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  with  its  translation  into  the  Samaritan 
language,  was  under  the  inspection  of  Morinus  print- 
ed in  the  sixth  volume  of  the  Paris  Polyglot :  and  in 
1633  Morinus  published  the  first  volume  of  his  Ex' 
ercitationes  biblias  de  Kebrai  Gracique  textus  sinceri' 
tate,  which  was  reprinted  many  years  afterwards  (in 
1669)  with  the  addition  of  a  second  volume. 


«'3  JbEOTURE  XI. 

The  object  of  these  Exercitationes  hihliac  is  to 
shew  that  the  Hebrew  Bible  has  descended  to  poster- 
ity in  a  very  imperfect  state  ;  not  that  the  Jews  had 
wilfully  corrupted  the  sacred  writings,  but  that  they 
had  transcribed  them  so  negligently^  as  to  have  lost  in 
very  numerous  instances  the  original  and  genuine 
text.  To  establish  this  position,  Morinus  appealed 
not  to  any  diversity,  which  might  be  found  in  the  He- 
brew manuscripts ;  for  a  collation  of  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts seemed  at  that  time  to  form  no  part  of  the  bus- 
iness of  a  Hebrew  critic,  whether  this  omission  was 
owing  to  the  circumstance,  that  the  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts were  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  or  that 
the  prevalent  opinion  in  regard  to  their  general  coin- 
cidence  deterred  men  from  undertaking  a  task  sup- 
posed to  be  useless.  Morinus  appealed  to  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Samaritan  texts  in 
the  Pentateuch,  and  to  the  differences  between  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  in  other  parts  of  the  Bi- 
ble. As  he  believed  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
contained  a  more  ancient  and  correct  text,  than  the 
Hebrew  Pentateuch,  he  concluded^  that  the  latter  was 
incorrect,  where  it  differed  from  the  former.  And,  as 
the  Scptuagint  version  was  made  from  manuscripts, 
"which  must  have  been  older  by  a  thousand  yeai's,  than 
the  oldest  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  extant  in  the  fif- 
teenth and  sixteenth  centuries,  or  from  which  any  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Bible  could  have  been  printed,  he 
inferred  that  the  Scptuagint  version  had  greater  criti- 
cal authority,  than  either  Hebrew  manuscripts  or  He- 
brew editions.     But  Morinus,  in  preferring  the  Greek 


LECTURE  XL  m 

Version  to  the  Hebrew  original,  did  not  consider,  that 
this  version  has  itself  undergone  material  alterations. 
Morinus  argued,  as  if  his  copy  of  the  Septuagint  con- 
tained the  Greek  text  in  its  original  and  unadulterated 
state.  It  is  only  on  this  supposition,  that  his  reason- 
ing from  the  antiquity  of  that  version  compared  with 
the  age  of  the  present  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  the 
inference,  which  he  thence  deduced  in  favour  of  the 
former,  to  the  disparagement  of  the  latter,  can  have 
the  least  foundation.  But  the  supposition  is  evident- 
ly false,  as  appears  both  from  the  testimony  of  Origen, 
which  was  given  in  a  former  Lecture,  and  from  a  col- 
lation of  the  manuscripts  now  extant.  In  fact,  before 
we  can  safely  apply  the  Septuagint  to  the  emendation 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  we  must  be  furnished  with  a 

critical  edition  of  the  Septuagint  itself. From  what 

has  been  aheady  stated,  it  appears  that  Morinus  went 
as  far  into  07ie  extreme,  as  Buxtorf  had  gone  into  the 
other.  But  Morinus  was  not  satisfied  with  going  thtis 
far :  he  went  still  further,  and  opposed  to  the  Hebrew 
the  authority  likewise  of  the  Latin  version,  for  which 
he  could  have  no  other  reason,  than  that  the  Latin  is 
the  established  version  of  his  own  church,  the  church 
of  Rome.  Here  then  he  mixed  religious  with  critical 
inquiries,  which  must  always  be  kept  distinct,  or  ev- 
ery Christian  party  will  at  length  have  a  Bible  of  its 
own. 

In  the  year  following  Simeon  de  Muis,  who  had 
written  already  against  the  Exercitationes  ecclesiastics 
respecting  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  published  his 
Assertio  altera  Veritatis  Hebroia^,  against  the  Exerci- 


84  LECTURE  XI. 

tationes  biblic^y  and  the  objections  of  Morinus  to  the 
integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text.  But  the  controversy 
on  this  subject  was  soon  afterwards  transferred  to 
Cappellus  and  the  younger  Buxtorf. 

In  1650  was  pubUshed  at  Paris  the  first  edition  of 
Cappelli  Critica  sacra.  In  this  work,  though  the  au- 
thor so  far  trod  in  the  footsteps  of  Morinus,  that  he 
combated  the  strict  notions  of  the  elder  Buxtorf  in 
regard  to  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text,  he  avoided 
that  extreme  on  the  opposite  side,  into  which  Morinus 
had  fallen.  He  maintained,  and  rightly  maintained, 
that  the  Hebrew  Bible,  like  all  other  works  of  anti- 
quity, had  been  exposed  to  the  variations,  which  un- 
avoidably arise  from  a  multiplication  of  copies  :  but 
he  contended  not,  that  the  sacred  text  was  thereby 
rendered  uncertain,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  manners. 
He  contended,  that  the  printed  editions  were  not  every 
where  so  correct,  as  to  warrant  the  opinion,  that 
emendation  is  superfluous ;  but  at  the  same  time  he 
admitted  that  we  possessed  the  means  of  emendation. 
He  considered  the  ancient  versions,  when  applied  un- 
der proper  restrictions,  as  one  source  of  critical  author- 
ity in  ascertaining  the  genuineness  of  disputed  passa- 
ges :  but  he  regarded  not,  with  Morinus,  a  deviation 
of  the  Hebrew  from  the  Septuagint  or  the  Vulgate  as 
a  reason  for  supposing,  that  in  such  places  the  Hebrew 
was  incorrect.  In  short  his  principles  of  criticism 
were  such,  as  the  best  judges  have  applied  to  ancient 
authors  in  general.  Where  Cappellus  failed,  he  fail- 
ed in  the  application  of  his  principles.  He  was  right 
in  asserting,  that  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,  from  which 


LECTURE  XL  86 

the  Septuagint  and  other  ancient  versions  were  made, 
had  not  precisely  the  same  text,  as  modern  manu- 
scripts, or  printed  editions.  But  he  sometimes  ascrib- 
ed to  a  diversity  of  readings  what  might  rather  be  as- 
cribed to  a  diversity  of  translation.  He  was  right  in 
asserting,  that  the  authors  of  the  Masora  had  not  es- 
tabUshed  a  Hebrew  text,  which  was  free  from  fault : 
but  he  was  unjust  in  not  acknowledging  the  services, 
which  they  really  performed.  He  was  right  in  assert- 
ing, that  even  the  Masoretic  text  had  not  descended  to 
posterity  without  variations  :  but  he  was  unjust  to  the 
authors  of  the  Masora  in  not  acknowledging  the  care, 
which  they  took  to  preserve  it.  For  if  their  success 
has  not  been  complete,  either  in  establishing  or  in  pre- 
serving  the  Hebrew  text,  they  have  been  guilty  only 
of  the  fauh,  which  is  common  to  every  human  effort. 
Nor  was  Cappellus  enabled  by  the  actual  production 
of  Hebrew  manuscripts  (a  defect  indeed  rather  of  the 
times  than  his  own)  to  confirm  several  positions, 
which  in  themselves  were  true. 

In  these  various  respects  was  Cappellus  open  to 
attack  :  and  his  work  had  not  been  published  a  year, 
when  it  was  assailed  by  Arnoldr.s  Bootius,  a  name 
now  buried  in  oblivion,  and  which  deserves  to  be 
mentioned  on  no  other  account,  than  that  his  attack 
was  published  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  Archbishop 
Usher,  to  whom  Cappellus  immediately  addressed  his 
£pistola  apologetica,  in  qua  Arnoldi  Bootii  teweraria 
Critica  censura  refellitur^  which  was  published  at  Sau- 
mur  in  1631. 

But  all  other  assailants  were   forgotten  in    the 
12 


86  LECTURE  XI. 

younger  Buxtorf,  who  in  1653  published  at  Basel  his 
Anticritica,  sen  vindicia  veritatis  Hehrawte^  adversus 
Ludovici  Cappelli  Critwam  quam  vocant  sacram^  ej us- 
que defensionem.  If  Buxtorf  had  been  contented  with 
pointing  out  the  defects,  which  really  existed  in  the 
work  of  Cappellus,  if  he  had  been  satisfied  with  shew- 
ing, that  Cappellus  was  sometimes  mistaken  in  the  ap- 
plication of  his  principles,  if  he  had  only  claimed  for 
the  Masora,  what  is  really  its  due,  the  victory  would 
have  been  decidedly  in  his  favour.  But  he  failed  of 
success  by  attempting  too  much.  Educated,  like  his 
father,  no  less  in  the  prejudices^  than  in  the  learning  of 
the  Jewish  Rabbins,  he  adhered  to  those  strict  notions 
on  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text,  which  can  never 
apply  to  a  work  of  antiquity.  And  by  refusing  to  ad- 
mit, what  was  indisputably  true,  he  contributed  to  es- 
tablish at  least  the  principles  of  Cappellus,  by  the  very 
efforts,  which  he  made  to  confute  them. 

Four  years  after  the  publication  of  BuxtorPs  An- 
ticritica,  Bishop  Walton,  in  his  Prolegomena  to  the 
London  Polyglot,  declared  in  favour  of  the  principles 
asserted  by  Cappellus,  acknowledged  the  necessity  of 
forming  a  critical  apparatus  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing a  more  correct  text  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  ma- 
terially contributed  thereto  by  his  own  exertions. 

A  collation  of  Hebrew  manuscripts^  like  those 
which  have  been  made  of  the  Greek  manuscripts,  was 
still  wanted  :  but  as  the  necessity  of  such  a  collation 
began  now  to  be  acknowledged,  attempts  to  that  pur- 
pose were  gradually  made  by  the  subsequent  editors 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible.     In  1661  Joseph  Athias,  a  learn- 


LECTURE  XL  W 

cd  Rabbi  and  printer  at  Amsterdam,  published  a  He- 
brew Bible  (reprinted  in  1667)  the  text  of  whi  h  was 
founded  on  manuscripts,  as  well  as  on  printed  editions. 
And  in  the  Preface,  which  was  written  by  John  Leus- 
den,  Hebrew  Professor  at  Utrecht,  it  is  related  that 
one  of  the  manuscripts  was  nine  hundred  years  old. 
In  1690  Jablonski,  a  Lutheran  Clergyman  at  Berlin, 
published  a  Hebrew  B.ble,  for  which  he  likewise  col- 
lated manuscripts,  and  gave  some  account  of  them  in 
his  Preface.  In  1705  was  printed  at  Amsterdam  the 
edition  of  Van  dei-  Hooght,  well  known  for  its  typo- 
graphical beauty,  and  its  convenience  for  common  use. 
The  text  was  chiefly  formed  on  that  of  Athias.  It 
has  the  Masoretic  readings  in  the  margin,  and  a  col- 
lection of  various  readings  from  printed  editions  at  the 
end.  In  1709  Professor  Opitz  at  Kiel  published  a 
Hebrew  Bible,  for  which  he  collated  both  editions  and 
manuscripts:  and  in  1720  John  Henry  Michaelis, 
Pofessor  at  Halle,  and  uncle  to  the  author  of  the  In- 
troduction to  the  New  Testament,  published  a  He- 
brew Bible,  for  which  he  collated,  beside  many  print- 
ed editions,  five  Hebrew  manuscripts  preserved  at  Er- 
furt, of  which  the  various  readings  are  quoted  at  the 

bottom  of  the  page These  are  the  chief  among 

the  critical  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  wliich  ap- 
peared before  the  midlle  of  the  last  ceniury  ;  for 
though  the  edition  of  Heincecius,  which  was  several 
times  reprinted,  professes  on  the  title-page  to  have 
been  formed  at  least  partly  on  the  authority  of  manu- 
scripts, those  manuscripts  are  no  where  mentioned 
in  it. 


88  LECTURE  XL 

Toward  the  middle  of  the  last  century  the  expec- 
tations of  the  public  were  considerably  raised  by  the 
preparations  for  an  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  by 
Houbigant,  a  priest  of  the  Oratory  at  Paris.  Like 
Wetstein  he  published  his  Prolegomena  before  he 
published  the  edition  itself.  They  were  first  printed 
in  1746,  and  were  followed  in  1753  by  a  splendid  edi- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  four  volun-ies  folio.  The 
text  of  this  edition  was  copied  from  the  text  of  Van 
der  Hooght,  divested  indeed  of  points,  and  of  ^y^ivy 
thii  ig  \A  bich  appeared  Masoretic.  Its  value  therefore 
as  a  critical  edition  must  depend,  first  on  the  appara- 
tus. \\hich  the  editor  provided  for  the  purpose  of 
amending  the  Hebrew  text,  and  secondly  on  the 
Hiode,  in  which  he  applied  his  apparatus.  Now  this 
apparatus  bore  no  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the 
undertaking.  If  we  except  the  Samaritan  readings, 
which  are  printed  in  the  margin  of  the  Pentateuch,  it 
consisted  altogether  (if  extracts  from  only  twelve  He- 
brew manuscripts,  three  of  which  were  preserved  in 
the  Roval  Librarj-,  and  nine  in  the  library  belonging 
to  the  Oratorv,  of  wliich  Houbigant  was  member. 
They  are  described  partly  in  his  general  Pi  olegome- 
na,  partly  in  the  Dissertation  prefixed  to  the  Proph- 
ets. He  says  indeed  (Prol.  p.  evil.)  that  he  saw  and 
had  in  his  possession  some  otb.er  manuscripts  belong- 
ing to  the  Royal  Library  :  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
he  ever  used  them.  Nor  did  he  make  imich  use  even 
of  the  manuscripts,  which  he  did  collate.  Their  vari- 
ous readings  are  not  regularly  quoted  at  the  bottom  of 
the  page  as  is  usual  in  critical  editions  of  tlie  Greek 


LECTURE  XL  89 

Testament :  they  are  introduced  occasionally  in  the 
notes,  which  are  subjoined  to  each  chapter :  and  when 
they  are  introduced,  which  is  not  very  often,  they  are 
introduced  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  such 
readings,  as  the  editor  himself  preferred.  The  gener- 
al evidence  therefore,  which  a  collation  of  manuscripts 
affords,  is  here  withholden.  In  fact  the  learned  edi- 
tor himself,  as  appears  from  what  he  says  in  his  Pro- 
legomena, attached  little  or  no  value  to  any  of  the  He- 
brew manuscripts  now  extant :  and,  though  he  allows 
them  a  place  among  the  sources  of  emendation,  that 
place  appears,  both  from  his  principles,  and  from  his 
practice,  to  have  been  rather  nojninal  than  reaL  Like 
his  predecessor  Morinus,  he  attached  much  greater 
importance  to  the  readings  of  the  Septuagint,  and  oth- 
er ancient  versions.  Like  Moriaus  too,  he  uniform- 
ly preferred  the  text  of  the  Samaritan  to  the  text  of 
the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  Now  though  it  cannot  be 
denied,  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  of  great  im- 
portance to  a  biblical  critic,  though  it  is  probable  that 
many  of  its  readings  are  preferable  to  the  correspondent 
readings  of  the  Hebrew,  yet  to  assume,  as  a  general 
principle,  that  the  Hebrew  is  faulty,  or  even  to  be  sus- 
pected, because  it  differs  from  the  Samaritan,  is  to  reg- 
ulate our  judgment  by  a  single  evidence,  where  other 
witnesses  are  at  least  entitled  to  be  heard.  But  there 
was  a  fourth  source  of  emendation,  to  which  Houbi- 
gant  had  more  frequent  recourse  than  to  any  other, 
namely,  emendation  from  his  own  conjecture.  And 
here  he  indulged  himself  to  such  a  degree,  as  no  so- 
ber critic  can  approve.     It  is  true,  that  he  did  not  ob- 


90  LECTURE  XL 

trude  his  conjectures  on  the  Hebrew  text.  But  he 
introduced  them  in  his  Litin  translation,  which  not 
only  accompanied  the  Hebrew,  but  was  afterwards 
printed  separately,  and  is  necessarily  more  read  than 
the  original.  Though  he  professed  therefore  to  adopt 
the  principles  of  Cappellus,  he  had  not  the  caution^  nor 
had  he  the  sagacity  of  tiiat  eminent  critic  :  and  in  his 
opposition  to  tiie  two  Buxtorfs  he  was  most  defective 
where  they  were  most  distinguished.  \^  e  must  not 
indeed  deny  the  ingenuity^  which  he  sometimes  dis- 
plays in  his  critical  conjectures  :  but  if  he  had  known 
"inore^  he  would  have  conjectured  less.  He  knew  too 
little  of  the  Masora,  to  form  a  judgment  of  it :  and  he 
rejected,  as  is  frequi  ntly  the  case,  what  he  did  not  ful- 
ly understand.  In  short,  if  we  must  go  into  extremes, 
the  extreme  of  the  two  Buxtorfs  is  infinitely  wiser 
and  safer,  than  the  extreme  of  Houbigant :  and  we 
had  better  declare  at  once,  that  the  Hebrew  text  re- 
quires no  emendation,  than  submit  the  Bible  to  the 
critical  licentiousness  of  an  editor,  who  corrects  with- 
out controul. 

In  the  same  year,  in  which  Houbigant's  edition 
was  delivered  to  the  public.  Dr.  Kennicott,  then  Fel- 
low of  Exeter  College  in  Oxford,  published  his  first 
Dissertation  on  the  state  of  the  printed  Hebrew  text, 
in  which  he  endeavoured  to  shew  the  necessity  of  the 
same  extensive  collation  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  as 
had  been  already  undertaken  of  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts :  and  in  support  of  his  opinion  he  exhibited  a 
specimen  of  various  readings  from  seventy  Hebrew 
manuscripts  preserved  in  the  Bodleian  Library.     In 


LECTUIIB  XI.  SI 

1759  he  published  his  second  Dissertation,  on  the 
state  of  the  printed  Hebrew  text,  wherein  he  also  re- 
plied to  the  objections  which  had  been  made  to  his 
first  Dissertation.  And  the  utility  of  the  proposed 
collation  being  then  very  generally  admitted,  a  very 
liberal  subscription  was  made  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  collation.  The  subscription  amounted  on  the 
whole  to  nearly  ten  thousand  pounds,  and  the  name  of 
his  present  Majesty  headed  the  list  of  subscribers. 
Various  persons  were  employed,  both  at  home  and 
abroad :  but  of  the  foreign  literati  the  principal  was 
Professor  Bruns,  of  the  University  of  Helmstadt,  who 
not  only  collated  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  Germany, 
but  went  for  that  purpose  into  Italy  and  Switzerland. 
The  business  of  collation  continued  from  1760  to 
1769  inclusive,  daring  which  period  Dr.  Kennicott 
published  annually  an  account  of  the  progress,  which 
was  made.  More  than  six  hundred  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts, and  sixteen  manuscripts  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  were  discovered  in  different  libraries  in 
England  and  on  the  continent :  many  of  which  were 
wholly  collated,  and  others  consulted  in  important  pas- 
sages. Several  years  of  course  elapsed,  after  the  col- 
lations were  finished,  before  the  materials  could  bear- 
ranged  and  digested  for  publication.  In  1776  the 
first  volume  of  Dr.  Kennicott's  Hebrew  Bible  was 
delivered  to  the  public,  and  in  1780  the  second  vol- 
ume. It  was  printed  at  the  Clarendon  Press :  and 
the  University  of  Oxford  has  the  honour  of  having 
produced  the  first  critical  edition  upon  a  large  scale^ 
both  of  the  Greek  Testament^  and  of  the  Hebrew  Bi* 


i^  LECTURE  :XI. 

ble,  an  honour,  which  it  is  still  maintaining  by  a  simi- 
lar edition,  hitherto  indeed  unfinished,  of  the  Greek 
Version. 

The  text  of  Kennicott's  edition  was  printed  from 
that  of  Van  der  Hooght,  with  which  the  Hebrew  man- 
uscripts, by  Kennicott's  direction,  were  all  collated. 
But,  as  variations  in  the  points  were  disregarded  in 
the  collation^  the  points  were  not  added  in  the  text. 
The  various  readings,  as  in  the  critical  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  were  printed  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page  with  references  to  the  correspondent  readings  of 
the  text.  In  the  Pentateuch  the  deviations  of  the  Sa- 
maritan text  were  printed  in  a  column  parallel  to  the 
Hebrew  ;  and  the  variations  observable  in  the  Samar- 
itan manuscripts,  which  differ  from  each  other  as  well 
as  the  Hebrew,  are  likewise  noted  with  references  to 
the  Samaritan  printed  text.  To  this  collation  of  man- 
uscripts was  added  a  collation  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  in  the  same  manner 
as  Wetstein  has  noted  the  variations  observable  in  the 
principal  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament.  Nor  did 
Kennicott  confine  his  collation  to  manuscripts  and 
editions.  He  further  considered,  that,  as  the  quota- 
tions from  the  Greek  Testament  in  the  works  of  ec- 
clesiastical writers  afford  another  source  of  various 
readings,  so  the  quotations  from  the  Hebrew  Bible  in 
the  works  of  Jewish  writers  are  likewise  subjects  of 
critical  inquiry.  For  this  purpose  he  had  recourse  to 
the  most  distinguished  among  the  Rabbinical  writings, 
but  particularly  to  the  Talmud,  the  text  of  which  is 
as  ancient  as  the  third  century.     In  the  quotation  of 


LECTURE  XI.  •  93 

his  authorities  he  designates  them  by  numbers  from  1 
to  692,  including  manuscripts,  editions,  and  Rabbini- 
cal writings,  which  numbers  are  explained  in  the  Dis- 
sertatio  generalis  annexed  to  the  second  volume. 

This  Dissertatio  generalis,  which  corresponds  to 
what  are  called  Prolegomena  in  other  critical  editions, 
contains,  not  only  an  account  of  the  manuscripts  and 
other  authorities  collated  for  this  edition,  but  also  a 
review  of  the  Hebrew  text  divided  into  periods,  and 
beginning  with  the  formation  of  the  Hebrew  canon  af- 
ter the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity. Though  inquiries  of  this  description  unavoid- 
ably contain  matters  of  doubtful  disputation,  though 
the  opinions  of  Kennicott  have  been  frequently  ques- 
tioned, and  sometimes  justly  questioned,  his  Disser- 
tatio generalis  is  a  work  of  great  interest  to  every  bib- 
lical scholar.  Kennicott  was  a  disciple  of  Cappellus, 
both  in  respect  to  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
and  in  respect  to  the  preference  of  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch :  but  he  avoided  the  extreme,  into  which  Mo- 
rinus  and  Houbigant  had  fallen.  And  though  he  pos- 
sessed not  the  Rabbinical  learning  of  the  two  Bux- 
torfs,  his  merits  were  greater,  than  some  of  his  con- 
temporaries, as  well  in  England  as  on  the  continent, 
were  willing  to  allow. 

That  the  mass  of  various  readings  exhibited  in 
this  edition,  which  greatly  surpass  in  number  the  vari- 
ous readings  collected  by  the  industr}-  of  three  centu- 
ries for  the  Greek  Testament,  contains  but  few  of  real 
importance,  is  no  subject  of  reproach  to  the  learned 
«ditor,  who  could  only  produce  what  his  authorities 
13 


94  LECTURE  XI. 

aflforded.  Nor  is  he  to  be  censured  for  giving  a// that 
he  had,  without  regard  to  their  relative  value.  His 
was  the  first  attempt,  which  was  ever  made,  to  give  a 
copious  collection  of  Hebrew  readings  :  and  he  could 
hardly  have  been  justified,  if  he  had  exercised  his  own 
discretion  in  regard  to  the  portion,  which  should  be 
laid  before  the  public.  He  wisely  therefore  afforded 
the  opportunity  to  his  readers  of  selecting  for  them- 
selves :  and  though  his  extracts  are  rarely  of  mUch 
value  for  the  purpose  of  critical  emendation,  they  en- 
able us,  both  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  existing  He- 
brew manuscripts,  and  to  draw  some  important  con- 
clusions in  regard  to  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
The  major  part  of  this  immense  collection  consists 
in  mere  variations  of  orthography,  in  the  fulness  or 
defectiveness  of  certain  words,  in  the  addition  or  sub- 
traction of  a  mater  lectionis,  of  a  Fau  or  a  Jod.  And 
if  we  further  deduct  the  readings,  which  are  either 
manifest  errata,  or  in  other  respects  are  of  no  value, 
the  important  deviations  will  be  confined  within  a  very 
narrow  compass.  In  short  Dr.  Kennicott's  collation 
has  contributed  to  establish  the  credit  of  the  Masora. 
We  learn  from  it  this  useful  lesson,  that  although  a 
multiplication  of  written  copies  will,  notwithstanding 
all  human  endeavours,  produce  variations  in  the  text, 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  have  been  so  far 
protected  by  the  operation  of  the  Masora,  that  ail 
which  are  now  extant,  both  the  oldest  and  the  newest, 
may  be  compared  with  those  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  which  Griesbach  refers  to  the  same 
edition. 


LECTURE  XI.  95 

That  the  integrity  therefore  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
from  the  time  when  it  was  fixed  by  the  authors  of  the 
Masora,  has  been  as  strictly  preserved  to  the  present 
age,  as  it  is  possible  to  preserve  an  ancient  work,  is  a 
position,  which  no  longer  admits  a  doubt.  Another 
question  of  equal  importance  is,  whether  we  have  suf- 
ficient reason  to  believe,  that  this  Masoretic  text  is  it- 
self ^n  accurate  copy  of  the  sacred  writings.  In  the 
examination  of  tlus  question  Hebrew  manuscripts  are 
of  no  use  ;  the  oldest  now  extant  are  younger  by  some 
centuries  than  the  Masora  itself:  and  therefore  they 
cannot  furnish  the  means  of  correcting  the  faults, 
which  the  Masorcts  themselves  may  have  committed. 
For  though  Ante- Masoretic  readings  should  occa- 
sionally be  found  in  Hebrew  manuscripts,  it  would  be 
very  uncritical  to  correct  the  Masoretic  text  on  their 
authority  alone,  unless  we  might  take  for  granted, 
what  we  certainly  may  not,  that  every  Masoretic  al- 
teration was  an  alteration  for  the  worse.  But  if  we 
cannot  appeal  to  positive  evidence,  we  must  argue 
from  the  evidence,  which  the  nature  of  the  case  ad- 
mits. It  is  indeed  one  of  those  questions,  which 
ought  to  be  holden  in  the  affirmative^  till  we  have  rea- 
son to  believe  the  negative.  Now  the  learned  Jews  of 
Tiberias,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  must  have 
had  access  to  Hebrew  manuscripts  which  were  written 
before  the  birth  of  Christ.  We  know  that  they 
sought  and  collated  them.  We  know  that  their  ex- 
ertions to  obtain  an  accurate  text  were  equal  to  their 
endeavours  to  preserve  it.  Why  then  shall  we  con- 
elude,  that  they  laboured  in  vain  ? 


H  LECTURE  XI. 

Our  notions  of  integrity  must  not  indeed  be  car^ 
ried  to  such  an  height,  as  to  imply  that  no  deviations 
from  the  sacred  autographs  were  retained  in  the  Ma- 
soretic  text,  that  there  are  no  passages  in  our  present 
Hebrew  Bibles,  which  betray  marks  of  corruption, 
and  still  require  critical  aid.  Such  passages  undoubt- 
edly there  are  :  and  we  are  stiii  in  wsLWt  of  an  edition 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  conducted  on  the  plan  of  Gries- 
bach's  Greek  Testament.  Kennicott's  edition  brought 
us  hardly  so  far  in  the  criticism  of  the  former,  as  Mill's 
edition  in  the  criticism  of  the  latter.  In  the  years 
1784 — 1788  John  Bernard  de  Rossi  of  Parma  pub- 
lished four  quarto  volumes  (afterwards  augmented  by 
a  supplemental  volume)  of  extracts  from  Hebrew 
manuscripts,  which  form  a  considerable  addition  to 
Kennicott's  collations  :  and  in  1795  an  edition  of  the 
Hi.  brew  Bible  was  published  at  Leipzig  by  Doeder- 
lein  and  Meisner,  with  the  most  important  readings, 
which  had  been  given  both  by  Kennicott  and  Dr. 
Rossi.  But  we  sti//  want  an  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  in  which  the  readings  oi manuscripts  are  united, 
as  in  critical  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  with 
judicious  extracts  from  the  ancient  versiofis.  Such  an 
edition  would  supply  the  materials,  which,  if  carefully 
used,  might  enable  us  in  various  places  to  correcit 
what  appears  inaccurate. 

The  history  of  the  printed  Hebrew  text  being  now 
brought  to  a  conclusion,  it  is  necessary  according  to 
the  general  plan  to  describe  the  authors  who  have  il- 
lustrated the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  accord- 
ing to  its  several  departments.  This  description  will 
form  the  subject  of  the  following  Lecture, 


I 


I- 


LECTURE  XII. 


In  the  enumeration  of  the  authors,  who  have  best 
explained  the  several  departments  of  Hebrew  criti- 
cism, we  may  proceed  by  a  method  similar  to  that, 
which  was  adopted  in  respect  to  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment. 

As  a  general  and  elementary  treatise  on  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  Dr.  Gerard's  Institutes^  al- 
ready mentioned  in  the  ninth  Lecture,  may  be  again 
recommended.  Though  it  relates  as  well  to  the  in- 
terpretation, as  to  the  criticism  of  the  Bible  properly 
so  called,  and  both  subjects  are  comprehended  under 
one  name,  yet,  as  they  are  not  confounded,  it  will  be 
easy  to  select  such  parts,  as  immediately  relate  to  our 
present  inquiry. 

A  knowledge  of  the  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
may  be  best  obtained  from  the  first  volume  of  the  Bib- 
liotheca  sacra^  as  published  by  Masch.  An  account 
both  of  the  original  and  of  the  last  edition  of  this  work 
was  given  in  the  ninth  Lecture,  and  therefore  it  is  un- 
necessary at  present  to  observe  any  thing  more,  than 
what  particularly  relates  to  the  Hebrew  Bible.     On 


9s  LECTURE  Xil. 

this  subject  the  learned  editor  is  much  more  diffuse, 
and  much  more  profound,  than  in  the  account,  which 
he  has  given  of  the  editions  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
In  his  description  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  he  confines 
himself  not  merely  to  the  external  history  of  the  edi- 
tions, but  occasionally  institutes  critical  inquiries  in 
respect  to  the  formation  of  their  text>.  He  has  given 
also  a  preliminary  dissertation  De  codicum  Hebraico- 
rum  diversitatibus,  in  which  the  editions  of  the  He- 
brew Bible  are  divided  into  two  classes,  the  one  call- 
ed Masoretic,  the  other  Amasoretic.  The  former 
class  comprises  the  Hebrew  Bibles,  which  have  the 
marginal  readings  of  the  Masora,  aiid  is  subdivided 
into  two  portions,  according  as  those  readings  are 
quoted,  either  ^ wholly,  or  only  in  part.  The  second 
class  comprises  those  editions,  in  which  the  readings 
of  the  Masora  are  unnoticed.  An  account  of  the  edi- 
tions of  the  Hebrew  Bible  to  the  year  1730  is  given 
also  in  the  second  and  fourth  volumes  of  JVblJii  Bibli' 
otheca  Hebrcca,  De  Rossi  of  Parma  has  greatly  con- 
tributed to  our  knowledge  of  the  early  editions  of  the 
Hebrew  Bibles,  both  by  his  Disquisitio  critica  de  He- 
braicce  typographicd  origi?ie,  published  at  Parma  in 
1776,  and  by  his  .apparatus  Hebrceo-Biblicus^  publish- 
ed at  Parma  in  17o2.  But  all  the  information,  com- 
municated on  this  subject,  as  well  by  De  Rossi  as  by 
Wolf,  has  been  transferred  to  the  Bibliotheca  sacra  by 
Masch,  either  in  the  first  or  in  the  supplementary  vol- 
ume. With  no  less  industry  and  fidelity  has  the  au- 
thor of  the  Bibliographical  Dictionary  (noticed  in  the 
jiinth  Lecture)  availed  himself  of  the  labours  of  his 


LECTURE  XII.  99 

predecessors. The  critical  editions  of  the  Hebrew 

Bible  are  described  in  Dr.  Kennicott's  Dissertatio 
generalis  :  and  a  critical  dissertation  on  the  editions  of 
the  Bible,  which  preceded  the  London  Polyglot,  is 
contained  in  th,e  fourth  chapter  of  Walton's  Prolegom- 
ena. These  Prolegomena,  to  which  we  shall  have 
frequent  occasion  to  refer,  and  which  contain  an  ines- 
timable treasure  of  Oriental  literature,  were  reprinted 
in  octavo  at  Leipzig  in  1777,  by  L  A.  Dathe,  Profes- 
sor of  the  Oriental  Languages  in  that  University,  who 
accompanied  that  edition  with  a  valuable  preface. 
The  Dissertatio  generalis  was  likewise  reprinted  in  oc- 
tavo at  Brunswick,  in  1783,  by  Professor  Bruns  of 
Helmstadt,  who  was  Kennicott's  chief  assistant  in  the 
collation  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  who  accompa- 
nied the  edition  both  with  a  preface  and  notes. 

Of  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  some  account 
is  given  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Walton's  Prolegom- 
ena. In  the  folio  edition  of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra, 
published  in  1723,  a  catalogue  of  the  Hebrew  manu- 
scripts is  given  as  far  as  they  were  then  known.  In 
the  second  and  fourth  volumes  of  the  Bibliotheca  He- 
hraa,  tlie  latter  of  which  was  published  in  1733,  a  fur- 
ther account  is  given  of  the  then-known  Hebrew  man- 
uscripts. To  this  work  should  be  added  H.  F.  Koe- 
cheri  Nova  Bibliotheca  Hebraica,  published  at  Jena  in 
1783  and  1784,  in  two  volumes  quarto,  as  a  supple- 
ment to  that  of  ^Volf.  Till  the  collation  was  made 
for  Dr.  Kennicott's  edition  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew 
manuscripts  was  confined  to  a  very  small  number. 
This  number  however  was  so  increased  by  that  colla- 
4 


lai  LECTURE  XII. 

tion,  that  they  now  amount  to  more  than  six  hundred. 
They  are  all  enumerated  by  Dr.  Kennicott  in  his  Z)w- 
sertatio  generaiis;  and  the  learned  editor  has  related 
in  what  library  each  manuscript  is  preserved,  by  what 
mark  or  number  it  is  there  known,  what  books  it  con- 
tains, in  what  year  it  was  written,  (where  a  date  is  an- 
nexed to  it,)  or  to  what  century  he  himself  refers  it 
(where  the  maiiuscript  has  no  date,)  whether  it  is 
written  in  Spanish  or  German  hand,  and  (whenever  an 
account  of  it  has  been  already  published)  vv  hat  author 
or  authors  may  be  further  consulted.  The  Disserta- 
tio  generaiis  therefore  is  the  work,  which  is  always  to 
be  examined  in  the  first  instance  by  those,  who  are 
desirous  of  obtaining  information  on  any  Hebrew 
manuscript,  which  had  been  collated  before  1770, 
when  Kennicott's  collation  was  closed.  A  valuable 
supplement  to  Kennicott's  catalogue  is  contained  in 
the  following  work,  Apparatus  Hebr^eo-biblicus^  seu 
manuscr'ipti^  editique  codices  Sacri  Textus^  quos  possi- 
det  novceque  variantium  lectionum  collationi  destinat  Jo. 
Bern,  de  Rossu  Parma ^  1782.  %vo, But  whoev- 
er wishes  to  become  more  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  nature  of  Hebrew  manuscripts  in  general,  must 
consult  the  following  work  by  Professor  O.  G.  Tych- 
sen,  of  the  University  of  Rostock  in  Mecklenburg  : 
Tentamen  de  variis  codicum  Hebraicorum  Feteris  Tes- 
tamenti  manuscriptorum  generibus,  a  Judais  et  non  Ju- 
dais  descriptis,  eorumque  in  classes  certas  distributione, 
et  antiquitatis  et  bonitatis  characteribus.  Rostochii^ 
1772.  8vo.  In  addition  to  the  rules,  which  it  pre- 
scribes, for  judging  of  the  antiquity,  country,  writer, 


LECTURE  XIL  101 

&c.  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  it  has  digressions  on  oth- 
er points  of  Hebrew  literature,  which  shall  be  noticed 
in  the  sequel. — In  determining  the  antiquity  of  He- 
brew manuscripts,  it  may  be  useful  likewise  to  con- 
■sult  a  short  treatise  by  Professor  Schnurrer  of  Tiibin- 
gen,  entided,  Z)<?  codicum  Hebrieorum  Veteris  Testa- 
maiti  atate  difficulter  determinandd,  printed  in  his 
Dissertationes  philologico-criticce^  which  were  publish- 
ed at  Gotha  and  Amsterdam  in  1790,  octavo.  They, 
who  are  acquainted  with  German,  will  find  the  most 
perspicuous,  and  the  most  systematic  account  of  He- 
brew manuscripts  in  the  second  volume  of  Eichhorn's 

Introduction. Beside  the  manuscripts  in  Hebrew 

letters,  sixteen  manuscripts  of  the  Pentateuch  in  Sa- 
moritan  letters  were  collated  for  Kennicott's  edition, 
of  which  an  account  is  given  in  the  catalogue  of  man- 
uscripts in  the  Dissertatio  generalis.  It  was  related  in 
the  tenth  Lecture,  that  we  first  became  acquainted 
with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century ;  that  the  first  known  copy  of  it 
was  deposited  in  the  library  of  the  Oratory  at  Puris ; 
and  that  the  deviation  of  its  text  from  that  of  the  He- 
brew Pentateuch  gave  rise  to  a  controversy  on  tiie 
subject  of  their  relative  value.  But  an  account  of  the 
principal  authors  on  this  subject  will  be  more  proper- 
ly given,  when  we  come  to  that  department,  which  re* 
lates  to  the  utility  and  application  of  various  readings. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  first  printed  in 

the  Paris  Polyglot  under  the  inspection  of  Morinus, 
and  was  reprinted  by  Walton  in  the  London  Polyglot. 
In  these  editions  it  is  printed  in  the  Samaritan  chacac- 
14 


10«  LECTURE  Xn. 

ter.  In  1790  the  late  Dr.  Blayney,  Hebrew  Profes- 
sor at  Oxford,  published  it,  in  an  octavo  volume,  in 
the  Hehrexv  character,  which  had  been  already  used 
by  Houbigant  and  Kcnnicott,  in  printing  the  devia- 
tions of  the  Samaritan  text.  Dr.  Blayney's  edition  is 
moreover  accompanied  with  the  readings  of  the  Sa- 
maritan manuscripts  (collated  for  Kennicott's  edition) 
which  differ  from  the  printed  Samaritan  text. 

On  the  ancient  versions  of  tl.e  Hebrew  Bible, 
which  open  a  second  sour:e  of  various  readings,  our 
means  of  information  are  very  ample.  A  considera- 
ble part  of  Walton's  Prolegomena  is  devoted  to  this 
subject :  and  they  are  particularly  valuable  in  respect 
to  the  oriental  versions,  which  are  described  in  the  six 
last  chapters.  The  second  book  of  Simon'^s  critical 
History  of  the  Old  Testament  is  wholly  employed  on 
the  translations  of  it,  both  ancient  and  modern,  though 
the  latter  are  of  no  value  in  a  critical  history  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  on  which  account  the  notice  of  Lewis's 
and  other  histories  of  our  English  translations  must  be 
reserved  for  the  second  branch  of  Theology,  the  In- 
terpretation of  the  Bible.  In  Carpzov's  Critica  sacra 
Veteris  Testamenti,  printed  at  Leipzig  in  1728,  quarto, 
the  second  part  contains  also  an  account  of  the  trans- 
lations of  the  Old  Testament.  A  popular  account  is 
given  of  them  in  the  second  volume  of  Prideaux^s 
Connexion  :  and  also  in  Dr.  Brett's  Dissertation  on  the 
ancient  Versions  oj  the  Bible ^  of  which  the  second  edi- 
tion was  published  in  London  in  1760,  and  is  reprint- 
ed in  the  third  volume  of  Bishop  Watson's  Theologi- 
cal Tracts.     The  object  of  this  latter  work,  as  the  au- 


i 


LECTURE  Xlf.  loa 

thor  declares  on  the  title-page,  was  to  shew  the  excel- 
lent use,  that  may  be  made  of  the  ancient  versions  to- 
wards attaining  the  true  readings  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures in  doubtful  pUces,  But  that,  which  far  surpas- 
ses all  other  works  on  the  critical  application  of  the 
ancient  versions,  is  Eichhorn's  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament,  in  which  the  latter  half  of  the  first  vol- 
ume is  devoted  to  this  subject. The  best  account 

of  the  editions  of  the  ancient  versions  is  given  in  the 
second  part  of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra,  published  by 
Masch.  No  work  contains  so  many  of  the  ancient 
versions,  and  so  well  arranged,  as  the  London  Polyg- 
lot. 

As  the  Septuigint  is  not  only  the  most  ancient 
version  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  is  frequently  quoted 
in  the  Greek  Testament,  and  as, it  is  likewise  more  fa- 
miliar to  us,  than  any  other  ancient  version,  the  Latin 
only  excepted,*  the  authors,  v/ho  have  written  on  it, 
deserve  more  particular  notice.  The  first  writer,  who 
instituted  a  systematic  inquiry  into  the  Septuagint 
version,  was  Archbishop  Usher,  in  a  work  entitled  De 
Grcecd  Septuaginta  interpretum  Versione  Syntagma^ 
printed  in  London  in  1655,  quarto.     It  is  divided  in- 

*  The  histoiy  of  the  Latin  Version  has  been  ah-eady  given  in  the 
fourth  Lecture.  It  is  only  the  Latin  Vulgate^  made  by  Jerom  from  the 
Hebrew  which  can  be  applied  to  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Bi- 
ble. The  old  Latin  version  published  by  Sabatier  (at  Rheims  ia 
1743,  in  three  volumes  folio,)  being  in  the  Old  Testament  made  from 
the  Septuagint,  applies  immediately  to  the  criticism  of  the  Septuagint. 
In  the  edition  of  the  Bibliotheca  sacra,  Pait  II,  Vol.  HI,  as  published 
by  Masch,  both  versions  are  fully  described.  Much  information  on  the 
subject  of  the  Vulgate  may  be  obtained  from  Hody's  work  De  textil 
bus,  C/f. 


10*  LECTURE  XII. 

to  nine  chapters,  and  relates  to  the  origin  of  the  ver- 
sion according  to  the  account  of  Aristeas  (then  sup- 
posed to  be  genuine,)  to  the  time  when  and  the  place 
where  it  was  written,  to  the  alterations  which  were 
gradually  made  in  its  text,  to  the  corrections  of  Ori- 
gen,  to  the  modern  editions,  and  other  subjects,  with 
which  these  are  immediately  connected.  This  is  a 
work  of  great  merit ;  it  displays  niucli  original,  inqui- 
ry, and  may  be  regarded  as  the  ground-work  of  later 
publications  on  the  Septuagint.  In  1661  Isaac  Vos- 
sius  published  at  the  Hague,  in  quarto,  his  work  enti- 
tled De  Septiiaginta  inter pretihuSy  eorumque  trahxtione 
et  chronologia  dissertationes.  Isaac  Vossius  was  such 
an  admirer  of  the  Septuagint,  that  he  ascribed  to  it 
more  authority,  than  to  the  original  itself.  But  he 
met  with  a  very  pov.^erful  adversary  in  Humphrey 
Hody,  then  a  young  man  and  Fellow  of  Wadham  Col- 
lege in  Oxford,  who  in  1685  published  in  London,  in 
octavo,  his  treatise  entitled  Contra  historia'm  Aristeas 
de  IjXXj  interpretibus  dissertatio  :  in  qua  prohatur  il- 
lam  a  Judao  aliquo  confectam  Jiiisse  ad  condliatidam  au' 
thoritatem  Fersioni  GriCOff  ;  et  clarissimi  doctissimiqiw 
viri  Z).  Isaaci  Fossil  aliorumque  defensiones  ejusdem 
examini  subjiciuntur.  This  very  acute  and  learned 
writer  has  clearly  proved  his  position  in  respect  to  the 
writing  w^hich  bears  the  name  of  Aristeas  :  some  fee- 
ble efforts  were  made  indeed  to  defend  the  authentici- 
ty of  that  writing,  especially  by  Whiston  in  an  Appen- 
dix to  his  Literal  Accomplishment  of  Scripture  Proph- 
ecies: but  the  opinion  of  Hody  is  at  present  very  gen- 
erally adopted.     In  1705  Hody,  who  was  then  become 


LECTURE  XII.  ±0S 

Greek  Professor  and  Archdeacon  of  Oxford,  publish- 
ed the  work  already  quoted  in  the  fourth  Lecture,  De 
Bibliorum  textibus  originalibus,  Versio?iibus  Gracis  et 
Latin  a  Vulgata  libri  quatuor.  This  is  the  classical 
work  on  the  Septuagint  :*  but  there  are  others  which 
are  worthy  of  notice  ;  especially  two  publications  by 
Dr.  Henry  Owen,  Rector  of  St.  Olave,  Hartstreet,  the 
one  An  Inquiry  into  the  present  state  of  the  Septua- 
gint Version  of  the  Olcl  Testament;  London^  1769, 
^vo  ;  the  other  A  brief  Account  historical  and  critical 
oj  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  Lon- 
don, 1787,  Sfo.  The  author,  who  is  himself  an  ex- 
cellent critic,  treads  closely  in  the  footsteps  of  Hody. 
The  last  work  especially  should  be  read  by  every 
man,  who  wishes  to  be  acquainted  with  the  history  of 
the  Septuagint.  The  following  is  likewise  a  very 
useful  work,  as  it  represents  both  concisely  and  per- 
spicuously the  several  topics,  which  suggest  them- 
selves for  consideration  on  the  origin  of  the  Septua- 

*  As  Hody  in  common  with  many  other  learned  men  considers  the 
Hexapla  and  Tetrapla  as  different  'works,  and  they  were  represented  in 
the  third  Lecture  as  only  different  names  of  the  same  work  viewed  in 
different  lights,  it  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  that  the  latter  is  the 
opinion  of  Eichhom,  and  several  other  very  distinguished  critics  of  the 
present  age.  It  would  be  foreign  to  the  design  of  these  Lectures  to 
enter  into  an  elaborate  discussion  on  this  subject.  I  will  take  however 
this  opportunity  of  correcting  an  inaccuracy  in  the  same  Lecture  at  p, 
68.  From  what  was  there  said  of  the  column  of  the  Hexapla,  which 
contained  the  corrected  text  of  the  Septuagint  with  its  critical  marks, 
and  which  was  transcribed  by  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  it  might  be  in- 
ferred, that  the  Hexaplai-ian  text  of  the  Septuagint  has  descended  to  us 
only  in  fragments,  whereas  the  observation  is  true  only  of  the  other 
Greek  versions,  which  Origen  applied  to  the  emendation  of  the  Septu- 
?g^nt. 


106  LECTURE  XII. 

gint  version.  De  origine  ifersicnis  Septuaginfa  infer- 
pretiim  :  auctore  S.  T.  Aliiecke^  Conrectore  Lycei  So- 

raviensis.     ZiiWchovia^  17fc8,  ^vo. The  aiuhois, 

on  some  particular  subjects,  connected  with  the  utility 
and  application  of  various  readings,  will  be  noticed 
when  we  come  to  that  department. 

The  editions  of  the  Sepluagiiit,  are  fully  described 
in  the  second  volume  of  the  Gecond  part  of  the  Biblio- 
theca  sacra,  as  published  by  Masch  ;  to  which  descrip- 
tion is  prefixed  an  account  of  the  origin,  both  of  the 
Septuagint  and  the  other  Greek  versions  of  tiie  Bible. 
It  may  be  proper  to  observe,  that  there  are  four  prin- 
cipal or  cardinal  editions  of  the  Septuagint,  from  one 
or  more  of  which  all  the  other  editions  of  the  Septua- 
gint have  been  copied ;  namely  the  Complutensian, 
the  Aldine,  tlie  Roman  of  Sixtus  V,  and  Grabe's  edi- 
tion. The  Complutensian  Septuagint  bears  the  date 
of  1515;  it  was  printed  from  a  collation  of  Greek 
manuscripts,  which  the  editors  highly  extol,  but  of 
which  we  have  no  further  knowledge.  The  Aldine 
edition  Vvas  published  at  Venice  in  1518,  two  years 
after  the  death  of  Aldus  Manutius.  The  text  of  this 
edition  was  likewise  formed  from  several  Greek  man- 
uscripts, but  was  interpolated  in  various  places  from 
other  Greek  versions.  The  Roman  edition  of  Sixtus 
V,  which  appeared  in  1587,  was  copied  from  the  cel- 
ebrated Codex  FaticanuSy  with  the  exception  of  such 
words  as  the  editors  regarded  in  the  light  of  errata. 
But  as  such  corrections  depended  wholly  on  \\w  judg- 
merit  of  the  editors,  and  it  is  of  importance  to  know 
the  real  readings  of  the  Codex  ^'^aticauus,  Dr.  Holmes 


LECTURE  Xll.  ia7 

in  liis  edition  of  the  Pentateuch  has  carefully  noted  the 
differences,  however  minute,  between  the  texts  of  the 
Roman  edition  and  of  the  Vatican  manuscript.  Grabe's 
edition  was  taken  from  the  no  less  celebrated  Codex 
Alexandrinus,  and  was  printed  at  Oxford  in  four  folio 
volumes  at  different  times  from  1707  to  1720.  But 
though  this  edition  has  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  for 
its  basis ^  it  is  far  from  being  a  mere  copy  of  that  man- 
uscript :  for  Grabe  (also  Lee  who  continued  it  after 
Grabe's  death)  adopted  many  readings  partly  from  the 
Roman  edition,  partly  from  other  manuscripts,  where 
those  readings  were  believed  to  be  genuine.  The 
most  convenient  edition  is  that  of  Breitinger,  published 
at  Ziirich  in  1730 — 1732  in  four  quarto  volumes :  for 
it  contains  the  text  of  Grabe's  edition  with  the  devia- 
tions of  the  Roman  edition  in  the  margin. Hither- 
to no  collation  of  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  had 
been  undertaken  upon  an  extensive  scale.  In  1779 
Dr.  White,  Arabic  (now  Hebrew)  Professor  at  Ox- 
ford, published  a  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  London,  sug- 
gesting a  plan  for  a  new  edition  of  the  Septuagint.  In 
the  same  year  Mr.  Stroth,  master  of  the  Grammar 
school  at  Gotha,  published  in  the  fifth  volume  of 
Eichhorn's  Repertorium  the  first  part  of  his  Catalogue 
of  MSS.  of  the  LXX,  which  he  continued  in  the 
eighth  and  eleventh  volumes.  In  1788  Dr.  Holmes 
(afterwards  Dean  of  Winchester)  published  at  Oxford 
proposals  for  a  collation  of  all  the  known  manuscripts 
of  the  Septuagint.  The  undertaking  was  promoted 
by  the  Delegates  of  the  Clarendon  Press  ;  a  subscrip- 
tion was  made  toward  defraying  the  expense ;  litera- 


108  LECTURE  XU. 

ry  men  were  engaged  in  various  parts  of  the  continent 
for  the  business  of  collation  ;  and  Dr.  Holmes  pub- 
lished annually  an  account  of  the  progress  which  was 
made.  In  1798  he  published  at  Oxford  the  Book  of 
Genesis,  which  was  successively  followed  by  the  oth- 
er books  of  the  Pentateuch,  making  together  one  folio 
volume,  with  one  title-page,  and  one  general  Preface. 
From  this  general  Preface  it  appears,  that  eleven 
Greek  manuscripts  in  uncial  letters,  and  more  than  an 
hundred  manuscripts  in  small  letters,  containing  either 
the  whole  or  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  were  collated  for 
this  edition.  They  are  all  described  in  the  second  and 
third  chapters.  And  as  the  text  of  this  edition  is  a 
copy  of  the  Roman  edition  of  1587,  the  deviations 
from  it  observable  in  the  the  three  other  cardinal  edi- 
tions, the  Complutensian,  the  Aldine,  and  Grabe's 
edition,  are  constantly  noted.  The  quotations,  which 
are  found  in  the  works  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  are  like- 
wise alleged :  and  finally  the  various  readings  of  the 
ancient  versions,  namely  of  such  as  were  made  from 
the  Septuagint^  for  versions  made  immediately  from 
the  Hebrew  can  furnish  no  various  readings  for  the 
emendation  of  the  Greek,  The  plan  therefore  of  this 
edition  is  good :  it  is  that  which  had  been  already  ap- 
plied by  Mill,  Wetstein,  and  Griesbach  to  the  Greek 
Testament.  Nor  is  the  execution  of  the  plan  to  be 
less  commended:  it  displays  uncommon  industry, 
and  apparently  great  accuracy.  The  learned  editor 
died  in  1806 :  but  shortly  before  his  death  he  publish- 
ed the  book  of  Daniel,  both  according  to  the  Septua- 
gint  version  and  that  of  Theodotion,  the  latter  only 


LECTURE  Xn.  109 

havinj^  been  printed  in  former  editions,  because  the 
Septuagint  version  of  this  book  is  not  contained  in  the 
common  manuscripts,  and  was  unknown  till  it  was 
printed  at  Rome  in  1772  from  a  manuscript  belonging 
to  Cardinal  Chigi.  Since  the  death  of  Dr.  Holmes, 
the  continuation  of  this  important  work  has  been  un- 
dertaken by  Mr.  Parsons,  who  has  properly  resumed 
it  with  the  historical  books  as  they  follow  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  from  the  specimen  which  he  has  already 
given  (the  Book  of  Joshua  just  published)  appears 
well  worthy  of  the  task,  which  has  been  committed  to 
his  care.  Every  friend  of  biblical  literature  must 
wish  to  see  the  completion  of  this  edition. — On  the 
application  of  the  Septuagint  version  to  the  criticism  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible  may  be  consulted  the  two  following 
Works  :  F.  V.  Re'inhardi  Dissertatio  de  versionis  Alex- 
andrine authoritate  et  usu  in  constituendd  librorum  He- 
hraicorum  Icctione  genuind.     Vitembergce,   1117,  Ato, 

G,  C.  Knappii  Dissertatio  de  versione  Alexandri- 

nd  in  emendandd  lectione  exempli  Hebraici  caute  adhi- 

hendd.     P.  i.  ii.     HaU,   1775,   1776,  Uo. The 

authors  who  have  applied  the  Septuagint  to  the  expla- 
nation of  the  Bible  will  be  mentioned  under  the  second 
branch  of  Theology. 

Having  already  mentioned  two  sources  of  various 
readings,  Hebrew  manuscripts,  and  ancient  versions^ 
with  the  writers,  from  whom  the  best  information  may 
be  derived  on  those  subjects,  we  may  now  proceed  to 
the  third  source,  which  consists  of  quotations  from  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  which  are  found  in  the  works  of  aa- 
cient  authors.  Philo  and  Josephus,  who  wrote  in 
15 


il»  LEC  rURE  XU. 

Greek  and  used  the  Septuagint  version,  if  not  exclu- 
sively, at  least  ciii^fly,  especially  the  former,  are  of 
very  little  use  in  the  criticism  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 
The  Talmud,  and  such  other  Rabbinical  works  as 
contain  quotations  from  the  Hebrew,  are  alone  of  any 
value.  The  Talmud  (a  word  which  signifies  literally 
doctrine)  may  be  regarded  as  the  Corpus  doctrince  Ju- 
daictff :  and  as  the  precepts,  which  it  contains,  relate 
not  merely  to  doctrines  properly  so  called,  but  to  cer- 
emonies as  well  civil  as  religious,  it  has  not  been  im- 
properly termed  Judceorum  jus  civile  et  canonicum. 
The  text  of  it,  which  is  called  Mishna,  was  compiled 
in  the  second  century  by  Rabbi  Jehuda  Hakkadosh ; 
a  commetary,  called  Gemara,  was  added  to  it  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  another  commentary  bearing  the  same  name 
was  afterwards  added  to  it  in  Babylon.  The  text  of 
the  Talmud  is  sometimes  accompanied  with  the  for- 
mer, at  other  times  with  the  latter  commentary  ;  and 
the  text  and  commentary  together  receive  the  appella- 
tion of  Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  or  Talmud  of  Babylon, 
according  to  the  commentary,  which  is  annexed.  For 
the  different  editions  of  the  Talmud  the  first  and 
fourth  volumes  of  TFolfii  Bibliotheca  Hebraa  rmisiht, 
consulted.  That  of  Surenhusius  (Amsterdam  1698 
— 1703,  six  tom.  fol.)  contains  only  the  Mishna:  but 
it  is  accomjjanied  with  a  Latin  translation.  The  co;i- 
tents  of  the  Mishna  are  described  in  the  second  part 
of  the  Antiguitates  Hebneoriim^  published  by  Professor 
Wahner  at  Gottingen  in  1743,  in  two  volumes  octa- 
vo.  It  was  observed  In  the  preceding   Lecture, 

that  the  Talmud  was  collated  for  Dr.  Kennicott's  edi- 


LECTURE  XIL  Hi 

tion:  several  other  Rabbinical  works  were  collated, 
whicli  are  mentioned  in  the  Dissertatio  generalise  and 
of  which  a  more  ample  account  must  be  sought  In  the 
Bibliotheca  Hebrcsa,  % 

The  fourth  and  last  source  of  emendation  in  the 
Hebrew  text  is  critical  conjecture.  It  was  asserted  in 
the  ninth  Lecture,  that  the  words  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment ouglit  in  no  case  to  be  altered  from  conjecture : 
and  this  rule  has  been  strictiy  observed  by  Griesbach. 
But  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  there  are  various  reasons 
against  the  total  exclusion  of  conjectural  emendation, 
though  no  prudent  critic  will  approve  of  it,  when  car- 
ried to  excess.  The  causes  of  accidental  error  in  the 
transcribing  of  Hebrew  manuscripts  were  more  nu- 
merous, as  was  shewn  in  the  tenth  Lecture,  than  in 
the  transcribing  of  Greek  manuscripts.  Hence  the 
very  long  period,  which  elapsed  between  the  time 
when  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  the 
Pentateuch,  were  composed,  and  the  time,  when  even 
the  oldest  of  the  now-existing  Hebrew  manuscripts 
were  written,  may  have  occasioned  in  various  places 
the  genuine  reading  to  be  totally  lost.  And  the  cir- 
cumstance, that  all  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  now  ex- 
tant belong,  as  it  were,  to  one  edition^  renders  the  pro- 
bability, that  in  various  places  the  genuine  reading  is 
contained  in  no  Hebrew  manuscript  now  extant,  still 
greater.  The  means  therefore  of  correcting  from  au- 
thority are  less  ample,  than  in  the  Greek  Testament ; 
and  consequently  conjectural  emendation  may  be  al- 
lowable in  the  former,  though  not  in  the  latter.  Be- 
sides, conjectural  emendation  is  not  liable  to  the  abuse 


il«  LECTURE  XII. 

in  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  it  is  liable  in  the 
New  :  conjectura  theologica  m  the  form  of  conjectura 
critica  does  not  so  easil)  find  room  in  the  former,  as  it 
does  in  the  latter.  Hence  Bishop  Lowth  in  his  trans- 
lation of  Isaiah  (London,  1778,  quarto)  not  only  cor- 
rected in  many  places  the  common  Hebrew  text  on 
the  authority  of  manuscripts,*  but  sometimes  intro- 
duced emendations  from  mere  conjecture.  Yet  even 
Lowth  has  been  supposed  to  have  taken  this  liberty 
too  often,  especially  by  Professor  Kocher  of  Bern  in  a 
dissertation  entitled  Findicice  S.  textus  Hebrai  Esaiie 
Fdtis,  adversiis  D.  Roberti  Lowthiy  Fenerandi  Episcopi 
Lojidmensis,  Criticam^  printed  at  Bern  in  1786,  and 
reprinted  at  Tubingen  in  1790.  The  principles  of 
Houbigant,  who  carried  his  conjectures  beyond  all 
bounds,  have  been  very  ably  combated  in  the  follow- 
ing work  :  Sebaldi  Ravii  Exercitationes  philologies  in 
C.  F.  Hubingantii  Prolegomena  in  Scripturam  sacram, 
Lugduni  Bdtavorum^  1785,  4^o.  Indeed  before  we 
have  recourse  to  tne  desperate  remedy  of  altering  an 
author's  words  from  our  own  conjecture,  we  should  be 
fully  satisfied  that  no  mode  of  interpretation  will  re- 
move the  diificulties,  which  may  present  themselves, 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  ihoug-Ii  the  remark  is  foreign  to  the  present 
parag'i-itph,  tha:  Micliaelis  in  iiis  German  translation  of  Isaiah,  whicli 
was  male  about  the  same  time,  and  of  which  nearly  one  half  was  pi-int- 
ed  wiien  i-owth's  Isaiah  appeared,  has  in  most  places,  where  he  haft 
preferred  a  various  reading'  to  the  common  text,  agreed  in  tlie  choice 
of  that  reading  with  Lowth.  This  coincidence,  without  previous  con- 
cert, between  two  such  eminent  critics,  argues  strongly  in  favour  of 
the  adopted  readings.  The  readings  here  meant  are  readings  really 
existing  either  in  manuscripts,  or  ancient  versions  :  for  on  tlie  subject 
of  conjectural  emendations  M ichaelis  and  I.owth  did  not  agree. 


LECTURE  XIT.  IIB 

Under  the  different  modes  of  interpretation  may  be 
reckoned  also  the  different  modes  of  pronouncing,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  of  pointing,  the  same  word. 
Michaeiis,  in  his  German  translation  of  the  Hebrew- 
Bible,  has  frequently  recourse  to  an  alteration  of  the 
points  :  but  he  made  it  a  rule  never  to  alter  the  conso- 
nants, that  is,  the  words  themselves,  except  in  cases  of 
extreme  necessity. 

The  last  department  of  Hebrew  criticism,  which 
we  have  to  consider,  is  the  utility  and  application  of 
various  readings.     This  department  has  been  rendered 
very  extensive  by  the  turn,  which  the  criticism  of  the 
Hebrew  Bible  took  at  the  beginning  of  the  seven- 
teenlh  century.     We  have  seen  that  the  elder  Buxtorf 
denied  the  very  existence  of  various  readings  to  the 
Hebrew   Bible.       The   history   of  the   controversy, 
which  consequently  took  place  between  Cappellusand 
the  younger  Buxtorf,  on  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew 
text,  was  given  in  the  preceding  Lecture,  where  the 
works  were  also  quoted,  which  were  published  at  that 
period.     The   Critica  sacra  of  Cappellus,  which  has 
ever  remaiiied  a  standard  work,  was  again  published 
at  Halle  in  1775 — 1786  in  three  octavo  volumes,  with 
very  valuable  Notes  by  Professor  Vogel  at  Halie,  and 
Professor  Scharfenberg  at  Leipzig.      Another  very 
excellent  work  is  the  Critica  Sacra  Veteris  Testamenti, 
published  at  Leipzig  in  1795  by  Professor  Bauer  of 
Altorf.     It  is  in  fact  a  revision  of  the  first  section  in 
the  second  volume  of  Glassii  philologia  sacra,  which 
relates  to  the  criticism  of  the  Bible,  as  the  second  sec- 
tjion  relates  to  the  interpretation  of  it.     Glass,  who 


di'k  LECTURE  XII. 

was  Professor  at  Jena  in  the  seventeenth  centurj%  had 
adopted  Buxtorf's  high  notions  of  integrity,  whicli  are 
properly  modified  in  Professor  Bauer's  revision  of  the 
work.  Carpzov  in  his  Critica  Sacra  Veteris  Testa- 
mentis  published  at  Leipzig-  in  1728,  quarto,  adheres 
likewise  too  closely  to  those  high  notions :  but  if 
proper  allowance  be  made  on  this  account,  it  will  be 
foiuid  to  be  a  very  useful  work,  and  replete  with  infor- 
mation on  the  subject  of  Hebrew  criticism. 

With  the  inquiries,  which  have  been  instituted  on 
the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text,  two  other  questions 
have  been  mixed,  which  have  no  necessary  connexion 
with  it,  namely  the  antiquity  of  our  present  Hebrew 
characters,  and  our  present  Hebrew  points ;    for,  as 
was  observed  in  the  preceding  Lecture,  the  letters  may 
have  been  changed,  the  points  may  be  new,  yet  the 
words  may  have  remained  the  same.      But  the  two 
Buxtorfs,  and  ottier  writers  who  have  carried  to  the 
highest  pitch  their  notions  on  the  integrity  of  the  He- 
brew text,  have  considered  this  integrity,  which  in  re- 
ality relates  only  to  the  preservation  of  the  wordsy  as 
including  the  unchangeableness  of  ihc  forms,  in  which 
the  words  are  expressed.     They  defended  the  latter 
therefore  with  as  much  warmth  as  the  former :    and 
represented  such  critics,  as  Cappellus  and  Walton, 
who  denied  to  the   shadow  what  they  allowed  to  the 
substance,  as  men  impeaching  the  integrity  of  the  sa- 
cred writings.     Hence  Professor  Wasmuth  at  Ros- 
tock published  a  quarto  volume  in  1664,  entitled  Vin- 
dicia  Sacra  Hehrccce  Scripture,  in  whicli  he  under- 
takes to  defend  what  he  calls  originalis  authentva  divu 


LECTURE  XII.  115 

na^  tarn  vocalium  et  accentuum^  quam  ipsarum  litcrarum 
sacr'i  textiis  Hebrm  ;  and  this  defence  is  conducted, 
as  h.^  further  savo  on  the  title-page,  adversus  impia  et 
imperita  multorum  prajudicia^  hnprimis  contra  Cappel- 
lU  f^ossi'  F.  et  TValtoni,  autoris  operis  Anglicarii  'xoXvy- 
AwTTou,  assertiones  falsissimas  pariter  et  perniciocissi' 
mas.  But  in  later  tinnes  these  questions  have  been  dis- 
cussed with  greater  calmness,  in  proportion  as  the  de- 
fence of  them  appeared  less  necessary  for  the  purpose 
of  religion.  With  respect  to  the  letters^  the  contro- 
versy between  Johannes  Morinus  and  Cappellus  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  younger  Buxtorf  on  the  other, 
has  been  already  related  in  the  tenth  Lecture.  The 
opinion  of  the  two  former,  that  the  Samaritan  were 
the  ancient  letters  of  the  Jews,  was  very  ably  support- 
ed by  Walton  in  the  tliird  chapter  of  his  Prolegomena, 
On  the  other  hand,  Stepli.  Morinus,  a  French  pro- 
testant  clergyman,  in  his  Exercitationes  de  lingua  pri- 
mcevd  (published  at  Utrecht  in  1G94,  quarto,)  and 
Wolf  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Bibliotheca  Hebraay 
have  defended  the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  letters. 
The  latest  and  most  useful  work  on  this  subject  is, 
Josephi  Dobrowsky  de  antiquis  Hebrceorum  characteri' 
bus  dissertatio.  Pragcc,  17S3,  8z;o.  This  tract  con- 
tains in  a  short  compass  a  perspicuous  statement  of 
all  the  arguments,  both  for  and  against  the  antiquity 
of  the  Hebrew  letters :  and  the  conclusion  \vhich  the 
author  deduces  is,  that  not  the  Hebrew^  but  that  the 
Samaritan  was  the  ancient  alphabet  of  the  Jews.  That 
the  present  Hebrew  or  Chaldee  character  was  not  used 
by  the  Jews  before  the  Babylonish  captivity   is  an 


416  LECTURK  XU. 

opinion,  which  is  now  almost  universally  received, 
and  the  truth  of  it  seems  no  longer  disputable.  But  it 
is  still  a  question  whether  the  Samaritan  letters,  in  the 
form  in  which  we  7ww  JiJid  them  in  manuscripts  of  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch^  were  the  letters  used  by  the 
Jews  before  the  Babylonish  captivity.  Now  as  letters 
are  continually  liable  to  some  trifling  alteration,  accord- 
ing to  the  taste  or  fancy  of  transcribers,  and  altera- 
tions, though  at  first  insensible,  will  by  frequent  repe- 
tiiion,  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  thousand  years, 
produce  such  changes,  that  the  modern  form  becomes 
materially  different  from  the  ancient  one,  it  is  highly 
probable  if  v/e  argue  from  analogy,  that  the  Samari- 
tan letters,  which  are  used  in  the  manuscripts  now  ex- 
tant, are  in  many  respects  difterent  from  those  which 
were  used  by  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  before  the  Bab- 
ylonish captivity.  But  what  was  the  form  of  the  let- 
ters then  in  use  among  them,  or  even  by  what  name 
that  alphabet  should  be  called,  are  questions  on  which 
the  learned  are  divided,  and  on  which,  for  want  of  da- 
ta, it  is  impossible  perhaps  to  come  to  a  decision. 
Many  writers  call  this  alphabet  the  old  Samaritan: 
Professor  Bauer  in  the  Critica  sacra  above-quoted 
calls  it  Phoenician  :  FJchhorn  in  his  Introduction  calls 
it  Phoenician-Egyptian  :  Michaelis  seems  undeter- 
mined about  the  name,  though  he  is  equally  of  opin- 
ion that  the  ancient  alphabet  differed  from  the  present 
Samaritan,  as  well  as  from  the  Hebrew.  A  detailed 
account  of  the  authors,  who  by  the  aid  of  inscriptions 
and  medals  have  endeavoured  to  tnice  the  forms  of 
the  ancient  letters  in  quebtion,  of  whom  the  principal 


LECTURE  Xll.  10 

are  Bayer,  Caylus,  Biittner,  and  Dutens,  would  occa- 
sion a  digressioa,  which  however  interesting  in  itself, 
is  not  immediately  connt  cted  with  critical  theology. 

Of  the  Hebrew  points  the  antiquity  has  been  no 
less  contested,  than  that  of  the  Hebrew  letters  :  and 
here  again  their  advocates  have  considered  their  an- 
tiquity as  so  connected  with  the  integrity  of  the  text, 
that  they  have  argued  for  the  divine  origin  of  the  He- 
brew points.  The  controversy  between  Cappellus 
and  the  younger  Buxtorf  on  this  subject  was  related 
in  the  tenth  Lecture,  where  the  works  weie  quoted, 
which  appeared  on  that  occasion.  The  Arcanum 
punctationis  revelatum^  first  printed  in  1624,  was  re- 
printed in  L.  Cappelli  Commentarii  et  not  a  critica  in 
Fetus  Testamentum^  which  were  published  at  Amster- 
dam in  1689  by  his  son,  who  prefixed  to  it  a  clear  and 
useful  statement  of  the  controversy.  In  the  same 
work  was  published  also  the  Vindicice  mentioned  in  the 
tenth  Lecture.  The  subject  was  so  exhausted  by  the 
original  combatants,  that  from  this  period  the  respec- 
tive advocates,  who  were  numerous  on  each  side,  and 
whom  it  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate,  had  only  to 
repeat  the  arguments  of  their  leaders.  At  length  Al- 
bert Schultens,  Professor  of  the  Oriental  languages  at 
Ley  den,  in  his  Institutiones  adfundamenta  linguce  He- 
br^ce^  published  at  Ley  den  in  1737  and  reprinted  in 
1756,  proposed  a  middle  path  between  the  two  ex- 
tremes :  and  as  Schultens  was  a  man  of  great  authori- 
ty, it  will  not  be  improper  to  quote  his  words.  In  the 
second  section,  after  a  statement  of  the  arguments, 
which  had  been  advanced  for  and  against  the  antiqui- 
16 


148  LECTURE  Xlf. 

ty  of  the  points,  he  says,  "  Controversia  simplicius pro 
posita  non  ita  dij^culter  componi  potuisset,  si  sold  veri' 
tas  qiiccsita  fuisset.  Amputa  quccstionis  iip])endices,  de 
hodiernis  figuris  et  nominibus  voculium^  de  Schevati- 
bus,  </(?  acGentuum  numero  etmunere  midt'iplwi:  dis- 
quire  dein  quid  verisirnilius^  adfuerintne  tnde  iib  anti- 
quissimis  tempnribus  vocales_  an  non  ?  Hoc  ipsum  quo- 
que  adhuc  rest7inge^  et  disputa^  an  non  ibi  saltern  \  oca- 
hum  notulae  adject  a  a  sacris  scriptoribusy  itbi  sum  ma 
necessitas  id  postulabat.  Hoc  negare  non  valde  vere- 
cundum  ;  idterius  quid  e.vigere  imprudens  et  bonce  cau- 
see  noxium.  His  Jinibus  si  lis  hcecce  semet  coerceaty 
Concordia  inter  criticos  et  theologos  sponte  coibit :  et 
puncta  vocalia  communi  consensu  justuin  ilium  et  natu- 
ralem  locum  obtinebunt,  quem  ir  doles  linguae  Hebrcec^^ 
quern  usus  Orientis,  iride  a  primgeva  origine,  iisdem  in- 
ter Chald(£OSy  SyroSy  Arabes  assignavit''^ In  1769 

Michaehs,  who  had  formerly  defended  the  antiquity  of 
the  present  points,  adopted  in  the  second  volume  of 
his  Miscellaneous  Works  (Vermischte  Schriften)  pub- 
lished in  that  year,  the  middle  path  proposed  by  Schul- 
tens.  He  admitted  on  the  one  hand,  that  our  present 
system  of  punctuation  was  invented  and  introduced 
by  the  Masorets :  but  he  maintained  on  the  other 
hand,  that  even  in  the  earliest  ages  the  Hebrews  made 
at  least  occasional  use  of  some  vowel  points.  —In  the 
thirty-sixth  volume  of  the  History  of  the  Academy 
of  Inscriptions  and  Belles  Lettres  published  at  Paris 
in  1775  is  a  very  valuable  Dissertation  by  Dupuy, 
(directed  chiefly  against  the  system  of  Mascleif  and  his 
followers)  in  which  the  same  medium  is  observed  as 


LECTURE  XII.  Idd 

by  Schultens  and  Michaelis. In  the  eighteenth 

volume  of  Eichhorn's  Rcpertorium  is  a  dissertation 
by  Trendelenburg,  of  whicii  the  object  is  to  piove 
that  the  ancient  Hebrews  had  three  vowel  maiks. 
And  Eichhorn  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, \,  62,  says,  "  From  the  preceding  remarks  it 
appears,  that  we  may  draw  the  certain  conclusion,  that 
tlie  ancient  Hebrews  had  vowel  marks,  but  not  the 
whole  number  of  those  which  are  now  in  use,  probably 
only  three ;  that  the  ancient  Hebrew  authors  provid- 
ed their  writings  with  vowel  marks,  not  indeed 
throughout,  but  only  here  and  thtre,  in  difficult,  ambig- 
uous passages ;  and  that  our  present  system  of  punc- 
tuation was  introduced  in  some  later  age,  probably 
after  Hebrew  had  ceased  to  be  a  living  language." 
The  question  is  very  clearly  stated  by  Eichhorn  :  but 
as  these  Lectures  aie  not  intended  to  convey  disserta- 
tions on  any  single  subjects,  it  would  be  foreign  to 
their  purpose  to  translate  more.  The  opinion  of 
Schultens,  Michaelis,  and  Ei«3hhorn  is  now  the  com- 
mon opinion  of  the  Oriental  scholars  in  Germany. 
We  must  except  indeed  Professor  Tychsen,  who  has 
uniformly  adhered  to  the  system  of  Buxtorf.  In  our 
own  country,  Walton,  Kennicott,  Lowth,  and  many 
other  distinguished  Hebrew  scholars  have  sided  with 
Cappellus.  Among  the  few,  who  in  later  times  have 
defended  the  antiquity  of  the  present  points,  may  be 
mentioned  Dr.  James  Robertson,  Professor  of  the 
Oriental  languages  at  Edinburg,  who  prefixed  to  his 
Clavis  Fentateuchi,  publislied  at  Edinburg  in  1/70,  3 


126  LECTURE  Xn. 

Dissertatio  de  g'enuind  punctoritm  vocalhim  Hebraico- 
rum  Antiquitate.* 

Though  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text  depends 
not  on  the  decision  of  the  questions,  whether  the 
points  be  coeval  with  the  letters,  or  whether  the  let- 
ters themselves  were  the  original  letters  of  the  Jews, 
yet  a  question  of  some  importance  to  the  criticism  of 
the  Bible  arose  out  of  the  controversy,  as  conducted 
by  Cappellus  and  Buxtorf.  This  question  is,  wheth- 
er the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  or  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch has  the  greater  critical  authority.  Most  writ- 
ers, who  have  maintained  the  superior  antiquity  of  the 
Samaritan  to  the  Hebrew  letters^  have  hence  conclud- 
ed that  the  text  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  more 
ancient,  and  more  free  from  corruption,  than  the  He- 
brew Pentateuch.  On  the  other  hand,  most  writers 
who  defend  the  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  letters^  prefer 

*  As  the  learned  of  the  present  age,  with  ver\'  few  exceptions, 
wMch  bear  no  proportion  to  the  whole  number,  admit,  that  ow  present 
system  of  Hebrew  points  (whatever  the  ancient  mode  of  punctuation 
might  have  been,  or  whether  Hebrew,  while  a  li\'ing  language,  had 
points  or  not)  was  introduced  in  a  later  age,  after  Hebi'cw  had  become 
a  dead  language,  the  question  occurs,  whether  it  is  not  allowable  there- 
fore, in  learning  Hebrew,fo  discard  tlie  points  altogether,  and  to  make 
some  pronunciation  for  ourselves,  after  the  manner,  either  of  Masclef, 
or  of  Parkhurst,  or  in  some  similar  way,  especially  as  the  study  of  the 
language  is  thereby  rendered  considerably  easier.  This  question  shall 
be  examined ,  when  we  come  to  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible.  At 
jH-esent  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe,  that  the  decision  of  this  question 
is  not  wholly  dependent,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  on  the  decision  of 
the  previous  question,  whether  our  present  points  are  ancient,  or  not. 
For  though  it  necessai'ily  follows,  that  they  must  be  retained  if  they  are 
ancient,  it  is  not  a  necessary  consequence,  that  they  must  be  rejected,  if 
they  are  maderiu  There  may  be  other  reasons  for  retaining  them  ;  an4 
it  will  appear,  that  those  reasons  are  valid. 


LECTURE  Xll.  121 

at  the  same  time  the  Hebrew  to  the  Samaritan  text. 
The  principal  advocates  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
are  J.  Morinus,  in  his  Exercitationes  ecclesiastical 
(Paris,  1631,  4to)  and  his  Opuscida  Hebrceo- Samarita- 
na  (Paris,  1657,  12mo  :)  Walton  in  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  his  Prolegomena  ;  Houbigant,  likewise  in 
the  Prolegomena  to  his  Hebrew  Bible  ;  Kennicott,  as 
well  in  his  Dissertatio  generalise  as  in  his  Second  Dis- 
sertation on  the  State  of  the  printed  Hebrew  lext; 
and  Dr.  Henry  Owen  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  com- 
parative Excellence  of  the  Hebrew  and  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch^ which  is  annexed  to  his  above- quoted  Brief 
Account  of  the  Septuagint  Vei'sion.  The  principal  ad- 
versaries of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  are  Hottinger, 
in  his  Exercitationes  Anti  Moriniance  de  Pcntateucho 
Samaritano,  published  at  Ziirich  in  1644,  quario  ;  S. 
Morinus  in  his  above-quoted  Exercitationes  de  lingua 
primcevd  ;  F.  J.  Schwartz,  Professor  at  Wittenberg, 
in  his  Exercitationes  historico  criticce  in  iitrumque  Sa- 
maritanorum  Pentateuchum.  Vitembergce^  1756,  4?o/ 
and  lastly  Professor  Tychsen,  as  well  in  the  above- 
quoted  Tentamen,  as  in  his  Disputatio  philologico-crit- 
ica^  de  Pentateucho  Ebrao- Samantano^  ab  Ebmo  eo- 
que  AfasoreticOf  descripto  exemplari.  Butzovii^  1765, 
4^0.  From  the  very  title  of  this  work  it  appears  that 
Tychsen  was  resolved  to  degrade  the  Samaritan  Pen^ 
tateuch  to  the  utmost.  Hottinger  indeed,  (to  whonj 
Walton  replied,  Prol.  XL  12.)  had  called  the  Samari- 
tan Pentateuch  Apographum  vitiosum  ex  Hebr<xo  Au-> 
tographo  :  but  Tychsen  goes  so  far  as  to  assert,  that 
■^t  was  derived  from  some  Masoretic  copy  of  the  He- 


v^2  LECTURE  Xir. 

brew  Pentateuch,  and  not  before  the  tenth  century. 
But  Tychsen's  arguments  were  fully  confuted  by 
Professor  Hassencamp  of  Rintein,  in  a  German  work* 

printed   at  Mindcn   in   1775,   octavo. After  all, 

though  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  been  rescued 
from  the  charges  of  its  adversaries,  it  is  no  necessary 
consequence,  that  it  deserves  the  preference,  which  is 
given  to  it  by  some  of  its  friends.      The  Pent-iteuch 
in  Samaritan  letters,  and  the  Pentateuch  in  Hebrew 
letters,  emanate  from  the  same  source  :  they  are  equal- 
ly derived  from  the  autograph  of  Moses.     The  differ- 
ence  in  the  age  between  the  oldest  Hebrew  and  the 
oldest  Sa??jarifaK  manuscripts  novv  extant  (on  whatev- 
er side  the  scale  may  preponderate)  can  bear  but  a 
small  proportion  to  the  7v/iole  period,  which  elapsed 
from  the  time  of  Moses  :  and  during  that  period  the 
manuscripts  in  Samaritan  letters  were  subject  at  least 
to  similar  though  not  the  same,  alterations,  as  the  man- 
uscripts in  Hebrew  letters.     The  purity  of  the  text 
depends  not  on  tke  sfmpe  of  the  chiracter^  in  which  it 
is  expressed  :    the  former  may  be  preserved,  though 
the  latter  be  changed,  or  the  former  may  be  changed, 
though  the  latter  be  preserved.     Even  therefore  if  tlie 
letters  now  used  in  Samaritan  manuscripts  vvere  pre- 
eisely  the  same  as  those,  which  were  used  by  Moses 
himself,  we  could  neither  conclude  from  this  conser- 
vation of  character  to  a  conservation  of  text,  nor  from 
the  cliange  of  character  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  to 

*  Its  German  title,  which  I  add  for  tiie  sake  of  those  who  under- 
etand  the  Iang\iage,  and  who  may  wish  to  procure  the  work,  is,  *•  Def 
entdeckte  Wahre  Ursprung  der  alten  IJibel-Uebei'setzung^enf" 


LECTURE  XII.  13^ 

a  ehans^e  in  the  text.  But  if  \vie  may  judge  from  in- 
scriptions and  medals,  the  original  letters  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch have  undergone  material  changes,  as  well  in 
the  Samaritan,  as  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts.  Upon 
the  w')o'c  then  the  two  Pentateuchs  are  more  nearly- 
equal  for  the  purposes  of  criticism ^  than  the  advocates 
of  either  have  commor.ly  supposed :  and  wherever 
their  readings  are  different,  the  genuijie  reading  must 
be  determined  by  other  arguments  than  those,  which 
are  founded  on  a  supposed  intrinsic  superiority  of  one 
to  the  other. 

Connected  with  this  subject  is  the  question,  which 
has  been  agitated,  whether  a  copy  of  the  Samaritan^ 
or  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  was  used  by  the 
person  or  persons,  who  made  what  is  called  the  Septu- 
agint  version  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  decision  of  this 
question  is  of  some  importance  in  forming  our  judg- 
ment of  readings,  where  the  Hebrew  and  the  Samari- 
tan copies  are  at  variance.  For,  if  the  Septuagint 
version  of  the  Pentateuch  was  made  from  the  Samar- 
itan text,  it  does  nothing  more,  where  it  agrees  with 
the  Samaritan  in  opposition  to  the  Hebrew,  than  re~ 
peaty  or  echo,  the  evidence  of  its  original ;  whereas  in 
the  places,  in  which  it  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  in  op- 
position to  the  Samaritan,  it  aifords  presumptive  evi- 
di^nce,  that  in  those  places  the  Samaritan  text  was 
originally  the  same  as  the  present  Hebrew  text,  and 
that  the  error  lies  in  the  present  Samaritan  text.  Now 
that  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
made  from  a  Sa?naritan  manuscript,  is  an  opinion, 
which  many  writers  have  entertained.     Even  Hottui:- 


104  LECTURE  XII. 

ger  was  of  that  opinion,  though  he  believed  that  the 
Samaritan  itself  was  derived  from  the  Hebrew.  But 
no  one  has  treated  this  subject  so  fully  as  Professor 
Hassencamp  in  his  Dissertatio  philoiogico-cntica  de 
Pentateiicho  JLXX^  Literpretum  Gncco^  non  ex  He- 
briCOy  sed  Samaritano  textu  converso^  printed  at  Mar- 
burg in  1765,  4to.  Professor  Tychsen  of  Rostock  in 
the  above-quoted  Tentamen  printed  in  1772,  attempt- 
ed to  support  the  opinion,  that  it  was  taken  from  the 
Hebrew  text,  and  moreover  from  a  manuscript,  in 
which  the  Hebrew  text  (as  in  the  second  column  of 
Origen's  Hexapla)  was  expressed  in  Greek  letters. 
This  opinion  however  was  very  successfully  combated 
by  Hassencamp,  in  the  second  part  of  the  German 
work,  which  has  been  quoted  in  a  preceding  note. 

After  this  description  of  the  several  subjects, 
which  are  more  or  less  connected  with  the  criticism  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible,  we  cannot  better  conclude  than 
with  a  caution  against  both  of  the  extremes,  into  which 
authors  have  fallen,  with  respect  to  the  integrity  of  the 
Hebrew  text.  What  we  ought  to  understand  by  that 
expression  was  explained  at  the  beginning  of  the  pre- 
ceding Lecture,  where  it  was  observed,  that  an  ancient 
work  may  be  properly  said  to  have  preserved  its  in- 
tegrity, if  it  has  descended  to  the  present  aaje  in  such  a 
state  as  upon  the  whole  the  author  gave  it.  In  order 
therefore  to  defend  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  maintain  with  Buxtorf,  that  there 
are  no  variations  in  die  Hebrew  manuscripts,  a  thing 
impossible  in  itself,  and  contradicted  by  fact ;  nor  is 
it  necessary  for  this  purpose  to  contend,  as  Professor 


LECTURE  XU.  133 

Tychsen  has  lately  done  in  his   Tetita?nen,  that  our 
Masoretic  text  is  hO  perfect,  as  to  require  not  the  aid 
of  a  critical  appaiatus.     The  Hebrew  Bible,  like  the 
Greek  Testament,  has  Ijeen  exposed  to  the  variations, 
which   unavoidably  result   from  a  multiplication   of 
written  copies  :  and  even  after  the  introduction  of  the 
Afasora,  it  was  impossible  wholly  to  avoid  them  :  nor 
can  it  be  supposed  that  with  all  the  religious  care  ap- 
plied by  the  learned  Jews  of  Tiberias,  the  te:it  origin- 
ally  established  by  the  Masora,  was  every  where  free 
from  error.     Indeed  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  greatest 
distinction  have  themselves  admitted  that  the  Maso- 
retic text  is  not  infallible,  as  De  Rossi  has  shewn  by 
some  remarkable  quotations  in  the  Prolegomena  (§. 
10.)  to  his  Farice  Lectiones  Veteris   Testamenti.     We 
must  apply  therefore  in  doubtful  passages  the  same 
critical  remedies,  which  are  applied  to  ail  other  ancient 
works.     But  among  those  critical  remedies,  we  must 
be  very  cautious  of  introducing  thai- desperate  reme- 
dy, emendation  from  conjecture^  which  should  never 
even  be  attempted^  till  all  other  remedies  have  failed. 
Nor  must  we  be  less  cautious  of  concluding,  that  the 
Hebrew  text  is  at  any  place  faulty,  because  at  that 
place  soTne  other  text,  or  some  ancient  version,  to 
which  we  choose  a  priori  to  give  higher  authority,  has 
a  different  reading.     Indeed  if  the  Hebrew  text  were 
so  faulty,  as  Morinus  has  made  it  in  theory^  and  Hou- 
bigant  m  practice^  it  would   be  impossible,   in  any 
sense,  to  assert,  that  the  integrity  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
had  been  preserved.     The  truth,  as  usual,  lies  be- 
tween the  two  extremes,  of  Buxtorf  and  Tychsen  on 


126  LECTURE  XII. 

the  one  hand,  and  of  Morinus  and  Houbigant  on  the 
other.  Among  all  the  works  on  this  subject,  whether 
English  or  foreign,  I  know  of  none,  in  which  this 
golden  mean  is  so  well  preserved  as  in  the  following, 
of  which  I  will  subjoin  the  whole  title,  as  it  clearly 
expresses  the  design  of  the  author.  Des  Titres  Prim- 
itifs  de  la  Revelation,  ou  Considerations  critiques  sur  la 
purete  et  Vintegrite  du  texte  original  des  livres  saints  de 
VAncien  Testament ;  dans  lesquelles  on  montre  les 
avantages  que  la  Religion  et  les  Lettres  peuvent  retirer 
d^une  nouvelle  editioii  projettee  de  ce  texte  compare  avec 
les  manuscripts  Hehreux,  et  les  anciennes  versions  Grec- 
ques,  LatineSy  et  Orientales.  Par  le  R,  P.  Gabriel 
Fahricy,  de  Vordre  des  FF.  Precheurs  Docteur  TlieO' 
logien  de  Casanate^  de  V Academic  des  Arcades.  Romcy 
1772,  2  totn,  8z;o.  This  work  was  published,  while 
the  collations  were  making  for  Dr.  Kennicott,  to 
whose  then-intended  edition  the  title  refers,  though  it 
is  not  exactly  descriptive  of  it,  as  Kennicott's  edition 
(though  Fabricy  supposed  it  would)  contains  no  quo- 
tations from  the  ancient  versions. 

Having  thus  described  the  first  branch  of  Theolo- 
gy, or  the  criticism  of  the  Bible,  according  to  the  plan 
proposed  in  the  first  Lecture,  I  shall  in  the  next 
Course  describe,  on  a  similar  plan,  the  second  branch, 
which  relates  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 


COURSE  OF  LECTURES. 


CONTAINIWO 


A  DESCRIPTION  AND  SYSTEMATIC  ARRANGEMENT 


Of  THE  SETEEAt 

BRANCHES  OF  DIVINITY  : 

ACCOMPANIED  WITH 

AN    ACCOUNT,    BOTH    OF    THE    PRINCIPAL    AUTHORS,    AND    Ot 
THE   PROGRESS,  WHICH   HAS  BEEN  MADE  AT 
DIFFERENT  PERIODS 

IK 

THEOLOGICAL  LEARNING. 

By  HERBERT  MARSH,  ».  d.  f.r.s. 

MARGARET  PROFESSOR  OF  DIV1NITT„ 

www 

FART  III. 

On  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 

vwvvv 

BOSTON : 

PUBLISHED  BY  CUMMINGS  AND  HILLIARD. 

Hilliard  &  Metcalf,  printers. 

1815. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


IN  presenting'  to  the  Public  the  Six  followinjj  Lectures,  which  have 
been  lately  delivered  before  tlie  University  of  Cambridge,  in  continua- 
tion of  Part  I.  and  Part  II.  already  published,  it  is  necessary  to  explain 
what  is  here  meant  by  the  term  Part,  lest  it  should  be  supposed  synon- 
ymous with  the  term  Branch  of  Theology,  as  used  in  these  Lectures. 
The  term  Part  is  here  applied  in  the  sense  only  of  Fasciculus  y  or  portion 
of  Lectures  given  and  published  at  the  same  period.  But  the  Branches 
of  Theology,  as  described  in  the  second  Lecture,  beii^  of  very  unequal 
extent,  will  occupy,  some  more,  others  less,  than  one  part  or  Fasciculus. 
Thus  the  Criticism  of  tlie  Bible,  which  is  a  very  extensive  Branch,  was 
continued  to  the  end  of  Part  II.  And  the  Interpretatiu7i  of  tlie  Bibje, 
which  is  a  still  more  extensive  Branch,  not  only  occupies  Part  II[.,  but 
will  be  continued  at  least  to  the  end  of  Part  IV. 

Cambridge,  10  June,  1813. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  XIII. 

Pag-e. 
Of  tJie  relation,  which  the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible 

bears  to  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible. — Difficulty  of  bibli- 
cal interpretation. — Some  erroneous  notions  on  this 
subject  corrected » 5 


LECTURE  XIV. 

Of  Words,  considered  as  signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was 
thought  by  the  writer. — Degrees  of  difficulty  attending 
the  discovery  of  the  notion  affixed  to  any  word  by  the 
writer. — Sources  of  intelligence,  in  respect  to  the  words 
of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  the  Greek  Testament. — Of  our 
authorised  version  ;  and  the  necessity  of  interpreting 
from  the  original  Scriptures 24 

LECTURE  XV. 

Rules/or  the  interpretation  of  Words. — Consequences  of 
neglecting  them  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. — . 
The  Interpreter,  who  explains  the  Bible  by  the  aid  of 
reason  and  learning,  compared  with  the  Interpreter,  who 
aspires  to  the  possession  of  higher  means. — Important 
practical  difference  between  the  terms  "  does  not  err," 
and  "  cannot  err." — Further  remarks  on  the  necessity 
of  theological  learning,  and  on  the  causes  of  it?  neglect       42 


IV  CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  XVI. 

Of  the  literal  and  figurative  use  of  words  ;  and  of  the 
fouudation  of  this  distinction  in  the  origin  and  fornw,' 
lion  of  language. — Consequences  of  interpreting  words 
literally,  when  they  are  used  figuratively. — JSTeces- 
sity  of  arranging  the  senses  of  words  in  genealogical 
order 58 

LECTURE  XVII. 

Relation  of  Mlegory  to  Metaphor. — Metaphorical  interpre- 
tation an  interpretation  of  words. — jltlegorical  interpre- 
tation, an  interpretation,  not  of  words,  but  of  the  things 
signified  by  the  words. — Origin  of  allegorical  interpre- 
tation among  the  Greeks. — This  kind  of  interpretation 
not  warranted  by  St.  Faul 75 

LECTURE  XVm. 

Adoption  and  injudicious  use  of  it  by  the  Greek  Fathers. 
— Abuse  of  it  by  unbelievers. — Tlie  sense  of  Scripture 
rendered  by  it  arbitrary  and  ambiguous. — Allegorical  or 
spiritual  interpretation  substituted  for  grammatical  in- 
terpretation in  the  twelfth  century  by  the  Mystics  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  who  have  been  followed  iti  modern 
times. — Typical  interpretation  warranted  by  the  sacred 
writers. — Definition  of  a  Type;  and  the  consequences 
of  neglecting  it. — Types  and  antitypes  multiplied  by 
various  interpreters,  without  end,  and  without  foun- 
dation     93 


LECTURE  Xin. 


X  HE  Criticism  of  the  Bible  having  been  fin- 
ished  in  the  last  Lecture,  we  now  enter  on  the  In- 
terpretation of  the  Bible,  which  is  the  next  branch 
of  Theology  according  to  the  system  explained  in 
the  second  Lecture.  The  nature  of  this  system, 
with  the  connexion  of  its  several  parts,  has  been 
already  so  minutely  detailed,  that  another  descrip- 
tion of  it  cannot  now  be  wanted.  For,  though  a 
knowledge  of  the  preceding  Lectures  is  necessary 
to  a  right  understanding  of  what  will  follow,  yet 
even  they,  who  were  not  present  at  the  delivery  of 
them,  may  obtain  the  required  information,  as  the 
preceding  Lectures  are  all  in  print. 

But,  as  Criticism  and  Interpretation  are  not  un- 
frequently  confounded,  it  may  not  be  unnecessary, 
before  we  enter  on  the  latter,  to  explain  once  more 
its  relation  to  the  former.  They  are  so  closely 
connected,  that  no  man  can  be  a  good  Interpreter 
of  the  Bible,  who  is  not  previously  acquainted  with 
the  Criticism  of  the  Bible.  It  is  Criticism,  and 
Criticism  alone,  which  enables  us  to  judge  of  the 


6  LECTURE  XIIT. 

genuineness,  whether  of  single  words,  or  of  whole 
passages,  or  of  whole  books.     And,  when  we  have 
thus  obtained  what  we  have  reason  to  believe  a  s:en- 
uine  text,  we   have   then    a   solid    foundation,    on 
which  we  may  build  our  interpretation  of  the  text. 
But  till  we  know  what  is  tlie  genuine  text,  we  must 
remain  in  a  state  of  uncertainty,  whether  our  inter- 
pretation is  founded  on  a  rock,  or  founded  only  in 
the  sand.     The  process  of  theological  study  is  un- 
doubtedly much  shortened,  by  taking  for  granted 
what  can  be  known  only  by  long  and  laborious  in- 
vestigation.    But  in  a  subject  so  important  as  that 
of  religion,  which  concerns  our  future  as    well  as 
present  welfare,  no  labour  is  too  great,  no  investiga- 
tion too  severe,  which  may  enable  us  to  discern  the 
truth  unmixed  with  falsehood.     In  this  place  lam 
addressing  myself  immediately  to  those,  who  pos- 
sess the  advantages  of  a  learned  education,  and 
cMeflij  to  those,  who  receive  a  learned  education,  for 
the  purpose  of  becoming  qualified  to  preach  the 
Gospel.     From  such  an  audience  no  apology  can 
be  required,  for  applying  to  the  Bible  the  princi- 
ples of  reason  and  learning  ;  for,  if  the  Bible  could 
not  stand  the  test  of  reason  and  learning,  it  could  not 
be,  what  it  is,  a  work  of  divine  wisdom.     The  Bi- 
ble therefore  must  be  examined  by  the  same  laws 
of  Criticism,  which  are  applied  to  other  wr'tings  of 
antiquity  :  and  every  man,  who  is  set  apart  for  the 
ministry,  should  consider  it  as  his  houuden  duty  to 
study   with  especial  care  that  primary  branch  of 


LECTURE  Xlll.  7 

Theology,  the  Criticism  of  the  Bible.  It  is  a 
branch,  whicli  gives  luitrimeut  and  life  to  all  the 
other  branches  ;  and  these  will  become  more  or  less 
vigorous,  in  proportion  as  that  branch  either  flour- 
ishes or  decays.  By  cultivating  the  Criticism  of 
the  Bible,  we  acquire  a  habit  of  calm  and  impartial 
investigation,  which  will  enable  us  to  enter  with 
greater  advantage  on  the  other  departments  of  The- 
ology ;  we  learn  to  discriminate  between  objects 
apparently  alike,  but  really  distinct ;  we  learn  to 
sharpen  our  judgments,  and  correct  our  imagina- 
tions ;  we  learn  to  think  for  ourselves,  without 
blindly  trusting  to  bare  assertion,  which  may  de- 
•ceive,  but  can  never  convince ;  and,  vrliile  we  for- 
tify our  faith  against  the  shafts  of  infidelity,  we  be- 
come proof  against  the  seductions  of  ignorance  and 
fanaticism.  Such  are  tlie  advantages  resulting  to 
an  Interpreter  of  the  Bible  from  a  previous  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Criticism  of  tl-e  Bible  ;  advan- 
tages unknown  to  the  mere  theological  empiric,  who 
regards  them  as  useless  for  no  other  reason,  than 
because  he  has  never  learnt  to  comprehend  them. 

But  how^ever  close  the  connexion  may  be  be- 
tween Criticism  and  Interpretation,  they  are  quite 
distinct  in  their  respective  operations.  By  the  one 
we  ascertain  what  an  author  has  actually  written  . 
by  the  other  we  ascertain  what  is  really  the  author's 
meaning.  This  distinction  we  must  iieep  constantly 
in  view,  or  we  shall  be  in  perpetual  danger  of  draw- 
ing false  conclusions.    The  difficulty  indeed,  attend- 


8  LECTUUE  XIII. 

ant  on  the  one,  is  closely  allied  with  the  difficulty 
attendant  on  i\iQ  other  ;  each  increases  with  the  antu 
quity  of  the  author.  The  more  ancient  an  author  is, 
and  the  more  frequently  his  works  have  been  trans- 
cribed, the  greater  is  the  probability  that  no  single 
copy  has  descended  to  posterity,  without  numerous 
deviations  from  the  autograph.  And  beside  the 
accidental  mistakes,  which  are  unavoidable  in  every 
transcript  of  an  extensive  work,  the  transcribers 
of  the  Sacred  Writings  had  stronger  temptation  to 
make  alterations  by  design,  than  can  ever  take 
place  in  the  copying  of  works  unconnected  with  re- 
ligion. So  much  the  more  necessary  is  a  knowl- 
edge of  Criticism  to  the  student  in  Theology.  The 
same  difficulty,  which  attends  the  Criticism  of  an 
ancient  work,  and  which  increases  in  proportion 
to  its  antiquity,  attends  also  the  Interpretation  of 
that  work,  and  likewise  increases  with  its  age. 
The  further  we  are  removed  from  the  period,  in 
which  an  author  wrote,  the  more  difficult  is  it  to  dis- 
cover, the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed, 
the  peculiar  object  wliich  he  had  in  view,  the  situ- 
ation and  sentiments  of  his  original  readers,  and 
the  probable  consequent  tendency  of  the  author's 
arguments.  If,  beside  the  distance  of  time,  we 
are  far  removed  from  him  in  place,  if  the  laws  and 
customs  of  Jiis  country  had  no  resemblance  to  our 
own,  if  not  only  his  language  was  diiferent,  but  his 
forms  of  expression  were  so  little  analogous  to  those 
which  are  in  use  among  ourselves,  as  when  literally 


LECTURE  XIJI.  t> 

lendered  to  imply  not  unfrequently  what  the  au- 
thor intended  not  to  say,  we  must  be  blind,  not 
to  perceive  the  difficulties,  which  attend  the  inter- 
jjretation  of  that  author.  We  must  be  blind  not  to 
perceive,  that,  in  order  to  become  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  him,  something  more  is  wanted,  than 
a  knowledge  of  our  own  customs,  and  our  oivn  lan- 
guage. 

Let  us  apply  then  these  general  observations  to 
the  Bible.    When  a  work  is  put  into  our  hands,  com- 
posed partly  in  Hebrew,  and  partly  in  Hebrew- 
Greek  ;  when  that  work  contains  historic,  legisla- 
tive, poetic,  prophetic,  and  didactic  materials  ;  when 
between  the  earliest  and  the  latest  of  its  compositions 
an  interval  elapsed  of  more  than  fifteen  hundred 
years,  and  an  interval  still  greater  has  elapsed  be- 
tween the  latest  of  its  compositions  and  the  present 
age  :  when  they  were  written  in  a  country,  and  un- 
der circumstances,  very  different  from  our  own; 
when  these  several  kinds  of  composition,  breathing 
more  or  les^  the  oriental  spirit  of  the  writers,  re- 
quire an  attention,  as  well  to  particular,  as  to  gen- 
eral rules  of  interpretation ;  surely  no  man  of  com- 
mon understanding  will  assert,  that  such  a  wwk  is 
easy  of  interpretation.     If  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writers  is  so  easy  and  so  obvious,  why  has  it  been 
deemed  necessary  in  every  age  to  write  Commenta- 
ries on  the  Bible  ?     Why  has  it  been  deemed  ne- 
cessary in  every  Christian  country  to  set  apart  by 
public  authority  a  class  of  men,  for  the  purpose  of 


10  LECTURE  Xlll. 

studying  and  explaining  the  Scriptures,  and  to  ex- 
empt them  from  secular  employments,  that  their 
time  might  be  wholly  employed  in  their  profession. 
al  duties  ?  It  is  an  error  too  frequently  instilled, 
and  too  readily  received,  that  the  qualifications  for 
a  good  Divine  are  of  small  extent  and  of  easy  at- 
tainment.  But  let  those,  who  have  been  seduced 
into  this  fatal  error,  reflect  only  on  the  manifold  sub- 
jects, which  should  engage  the  attention  of  the  Cler- 
gy, and  they  will  soon  be  convinced  that  the  knowl- 
edge, which  they  ought  to  possess,  is  less  circum- 
scribed than  they  imagine.  Let  them  consider  that 
Christianity  is  founded  in  miracles,  which  must  be 
verified,  and  in  prophesies,  wiiich  must  be  ex- 
plained ;  that  the  writings,  which  attest  the  one, 
and  record  the  other,  must  be  proved  authentic  and 
credible ;  that  to  establish  this  authenticity  and 
credibility  a  series  of  testimony  must  be  examined 
commencing  with  their  first  publication  ;  that  inter- 
nal evidence  must  be  applied  to  corroborate  the  ex- 
ternal;  that  this  iuternal  evidence  can  be  derived 
only  from  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  writings 
themselves  ;  and  lastly  that,  to  obtain  this  intimate 
knowledge,  we  must  become  acquainted  witli  the 
languages,  in  which  tliose  writings  were  composed, 
and  with  the  various  opinions  and  institutions, 
which  prevailed  at  different  times,  among  the  peo- 
ple and  in  the  country,  where  and  when  they  were 
composed.  The  discourses  of  inspired  writers,  no 
less  than  the  discourses  of  common  writers,  were 


LECTURE  XIII.  n 

necessarily  adapted  to  the  comprehension  of  those, 
to  whom  they  were  immediately  addressed ;  adapt- 
ed therefore  to  their  modes  of  expression,  and  their 
habits  of  reasoning.  If  ice  then  would  understand 
the  inspired  writers,  as  they  themselves  intended  to 
be  understood,  we  must  likewise  be  acquainted  with 
those  modes  of  expression,  and  those  habits  of  rea- 
soning. But  this  acquaintance  can  be  formed  only 
by  those,  who  have  opened  to  themselves  the  stores 
of  ancient  learning. 

Should  argument  however  fail  to  convince  us, 
that  a  just  interpretation  of  Scripture  requires,  on  the 
part  of  the  interpreter,  an  ample  share  as  well  of 
erudition  as  of  judgment,  we  may  appeal  to  the  ex- 
perience  of  almost  every  age  since  the  foundation 
of  Christianity.  If  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
were  easy  and  obvious,  there  would  be  little  or  no 
diversity  in  the  explanations,  which  different  com- 
mentators have  given  of  the  same  passage.  But  if 
Vve  compare  the  Greek  with  the  Latin  commenta- 
tors, we  shall  frequently  find  such  a  variety  of  in- 
terpretation, as  would  appear  almost  impossible 
to  be  extracted  from  the  same  text.  If  we  compare 
the  Jeivish  commentators,  either  with  the  Greek,  or 
with  the  Latin,  we  shall  find  as  great  a  variety, 
though  a  variety  of  a  different  kind.  If  we  com- 
pare our  English  commentators  with  any  of  the  pre- 
ceding, we  shall  find  no  diminution  in  the  variety 
of  interpretation.  Nor  do  we  find  uniformity,  either 
among  commentators  of  the  same  language;,  or  even 


12  LECTURE  Xill. 

amon^  eommentators  of  the  same  Church.  It  is 
true,  that  in  all  things  relating  to  doctrine  and  dis- 
cipline^  the  Church  of  Rome  preserved  during  sev- 
eral ages  an  uniformity  of  interpretation  by  the  com- 
mentary, which  was  called  the  Glossa  ordinaria. 
But  when  the  revival  of  learning  had  opened  new 
sources  of  intelligence,  and  the  Reformation  had 
restored  the  right  of  unfettered  exposition,  the 
Glossa  ordinaria  was  exchanged  for  neic  systems 
of  interpretation,  from  Luther  and  Melanchthon, 
from  Calvin  and  Beza,  from  Grotius,  and  from 
Spanheim. 

Here  we  may  observe,  that  the  uniformity  of  in- 
terpretation, in  respect  to  doctrine  and  discipline, 
preserved  by  the  Glossa  ordinaria,  has  been  con- 
trasted with  that  variet7j  of  interpretation,  vvhich 
the  religious  liberty,  procured  by  our  Reformers, 
has  introduced  among  the  manifold  parties,  compre- 
hended under  the  title  of  Protestant.  It  has  been 
urged,  that  this  diversity  of  interpretation  has  oc 
casioned  those  religious  divisions,  which  have  grad- 
ually arisen  since  the  period  of  the  Reformation. 
It  has  been  urged,  that  both  the  cause  and  the  ef- 
fect would  have  been  prevented,  if  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture  had  remained  subject,  as  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  to  some  general  and  acknowledged  rule. 
Before  therefore  we  inquire  into  the  diiferent  modes 
of  interpretation,  we  must  examine  the  principle, 
on  which  biblical  interpretation  is  conducted,  by 
the  Church  of  Rome  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the 


LECTURE  Xlir.  IS 

fjhiivch  of  Ein  j;land  on  the  other.  It  was  decreed 
in  the  fourth  rf^ssiou  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  *^  ne 
qnis  sacram  scripturani  interpretari  audeat  contra 
earn  sensum  quemtenuit  et  tenet  mater  ecclesia,  cu- 
jus  est  judicare  de  vero  sensu."  But  if  the  author- 
ity, which  directs  our  interpretation,  is  itself  liable 
to  error,  we  can  never  be  certain  that  it  will  exempt 
us  from  error  :  we  can  never  conclude  that,  because 
the  interpretations,  whlcli  are  founded  on  that  au- 
thority, will  agree  with  each  other,  they  will  there- 
fore agree  with  the  truth.  Now  the  Mnle,  by  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  decides  in  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  is  that  wliich  is  commonly  known  by 
the  name  of  Traditon  :  and,  as  the  meaning  of  Scrip- 
ture is  made  subject  to  this  Rule,  the  Rule  itself  is 
necessarily  considered  as  indejjendent  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  represented,  therefore,  as  derived  from 
the  Apostles  through  a  di^erent  channel  than  ?hat 
of  their  azTw  writings.  It  is  represented  as  a  doc- 
trina  fradita,  handed  down  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  who  are  considered  as  the  depositories  of 
this  Rule  ;  whence  it  is  inferred  that  the  expositions 
in  which  tlieij  agree,  are  the  true  expositions  of 
Scripture.  Now  all  this  is  mere  matter  of  opinion, 
and  is  calculated  solely  to  support  the  credit  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Tliere  is  not  the  slightest  liis- 
torical  evidence,  that  tlie  Apostles  transmitted  to 
posterity  any  Rule,  but  what  is  recorded  in  thft 
New  Testament.  The  Fathers  therefore  are  pre- 
cisely on  the  same  footing  with  respect  to  the  au- 


1*  LECTURE  XIII. 

thoritij  of  their  interpretations,  as  tlie  commentators 
of  the  prpsent  age.     Nor  in  fact  are  they  uniform 
in  their  interpretations  even  in  regard  to  doctrine, 
notwithstanding    the    agreement   alleged    by    the 
Church  of  Rome  ;  though  some  commentators  may 
be  selected,  as  well  ancient  as  modern,  which  agree 
on  particular  points.     The  Regulajidei,  therefore, 
set  up  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  justly  discard- 
ed by  our  Reformers,  who  contended  for  the  right 
of  biblical  interpretation  unfettered  by  the  shackles 
of  tradition.      But  in  rejecting  the  llegula  fidei  of 
the  Roman  Church,  as  an  authority  independent  of 
Scripture,  (a  rejection  which   constitutes  the  vital 
principle  of  the  Reformation)  they  did  not  therefore 
determine  that  no  Rule  of  Faith  should  be  acknow- 
ledged by  Protestants.     The  Confession  of  Augs- 
burg, the  Saxon  Confession,  the  Helvetic  Confes- 
sion, our  own  Articles,  the  Articles  of  Dordrecht, 
are   so  many  different  formularies  containing  the 
Megida  fidei  of  the  respective  Churches.     Indeed 
they  were  absolutely  necessary,  to  distinguish  as 
well  Protestants  in  general  from   the   Church  of 
Rome,  as  the  different  parties  of  Protestants  from 
ea.ch  other.     But  though  we  have  a  Rule  of  Faith, 
as  well  as  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  to  depart  from 
that  Rule  is  to  depart  from  the  Established  Church, 
there  is  a  fundamental  difference  in  the  principle 
from  which  the  respective  Rules  derive   their  au- 
thority.      Tradition   is   supposed  independent   of 
Scripture;    and  is  applied  as  a  criterion,  to  deter- 


LECTURE  XIlI.  15 

mine  the  meaning  of  Scripture.  But  whatever  be 
the  Rule  of  Faith  adopted  by  any  Protestant  com- 
munity, it  is  so  far  from  being  considered  as  inde- 
pendent of  Scripture,  or  as  resting  on  authority  de- 
rived through  another  channel,  that  its  validity  is 
acknowledged  on  the  sole  condition  of  its  being  a 
fair  and  legitimate  deduction  from  Scripture.  1  his 
total  and  absolute  dependence  of  the  Regula  fdei 
on  tlie  Bible  (uot  the  refusal  to  admit  one  at  all) 
is  that  which  characterizes  Protestants. 

The  preceding  remarks  on  the  dependence  or 
independence  of  the  Regula  fidei  on  the  BiMe  have 
been  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the 
principle  on  which  Protestants  shuuld  consistently 
interpret  the  Bible.  When  our  reformers  had  dis- 
carded Tradition,  as  a  guide  to  the  meaning  of 
Scripture,  it  has  been  asked  ;  By  what  means  did 
they  determine,  that  their  oum  interpretations  were 
right,  where  the  Reformers  differed,  iher  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  or  from  efich  other?  They  could 
not  appeal  to  any  neiv  Rule  of  Faith,  even  if  their 
principles  would  have  allowed  it ;  for  in  the  inter- 
val, which  elapsed  between  the  secession  from 
Rome  and  the  publication  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, no  new  Rule  of  Faith  existed.  When  Luther 
therefore  and  Melancthon  interpreted  the  Bible 
with  a  view  to  the  formation  of  that  Confession, 
their  interpretation  was  unfettered  by  pre-r(  nceiv- 
ed  religious  opinions ;  they  interpreted  the  Bible, 
as  they  would  have  interpreted  any  other  work  of 


16  LECTUK'K  XJII. 

antiquity  ;  and  fov  that  purpose  they  employed  tlie 
erudition,  by  wliicli  our  early  Reformers  were  so 
hi2;hly  distinguishe<l.  When  they  ai)an(1oned  there- 
fore the  guidance  of  Tradit  on,  they  supplied  its 
place  by  Jleason  and  Leariuno\  But  these  inval- 
uable substitutes,  tliese  qualities  of  sterling  worth, 
have  been  exchan2;ed  in  raodein  times  for  baser 
metal;  and  the  Scriptures  have  been  committed  to 
the  guidance  of  disordered  imaginations.  Nay,  our 
Reformers  themselves  have  been  pressed  into  the 
service  of  ignorance  a^d  fanaticism ;  and  expres- 
sions which  they  applied  to  oue  purpose  have  been 
grossly  misapplied  to  another.  Of  these  expres- 
sions therefore  it  is  necessary  to  give  an  explana- 
tion. 

One  of  these  expressions  is,  ^»  that  the  Bible  ig 
its  own  interpreter."  To  understand  this  expres- 
sion, as  it  was  meant  ])y  our  Rpformers,  we  must 
consider,  that  it  was  used  in  ojjposition  to  the  Church 
of  Rome.  It  was  used  solely  with  reference  to 
Tradition  ;  it  was  intended  solely  to  deny,  that 
Tradition  was  the  interpreter  of  the  Bible  ;  it  was 
designed  to  rescue  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible 
from  an  authoritative  rule,  which  would  have  coun- 
teracted the  expositions,  on  w  hich  w  as  founded  the 
Confe'><sion  of  Augsburg.  But  our  Reformers  did 
not  assert,  that  the  Bible  w  as  so  far  its  own  Inter- 
preter, as  to  require  no  explanation  whatever.  If 
this  had  been  their  meaning,  we  might  ask  ;  For 
ivhat  reason  did  both  Luther  and  Calvin  think  it 


LECTURE  XUL  17 

necessary  to  write  Commentariei^  on  the  Bible  ?  To 
what  purpose  did  Luther  enjoin  the  practice,  still 
observed  by  his  fvdlowers,  of  explaining  to  the  peo- 
ple from  the  pulpit  the  Grospel,  which  had  been 
read  at  the  altar?  In  fact  learning,  especially ^ram- 
matical  learning,  was  the  pillar,  by  which  the  edi- 
fice  of  the  Reformation  was  supported :  and  Me- 
lincthon,  wlio  composed  the  Confession  of  Au^^s- 
burg,  appealed  uniformly  to  the  maxim,  ScrijAn- 
ram.  iion  posse  intelligi  theoiogice,  nisi  antea  ratel- 
hcia  sit  gramraatice.  But  the  meaning  of  onr  He- 
formers,  in  respect  to  the  Bible  being  its  own  inter- 
preter, has  been  strangely  perverted  in  modern 
times ;  and  a  mere  relative  expression  has  been  so 
construed,  as  if  they  had  applied  it  in  a  positive  and 
absolute  sense.  An  expression,  meant  only  to  ex- 
clude Tradition,  has  been  made  a  pretence  for  the 
exclusion  of  Theological  Learning  ;  and  the  max- 
im, that  the  Bible  is  its  own  interpreter,  has  been 
carried  so  far  in  the  present,  as  well  as  in  a  former 
age,  that  men,  who  can  scarcely  read  the  Bible, 
have  dreamt  that  they  are  able  to  expound  it.  Nor 
is  their  inconsistency  less  remarkable,  than  their 
presumption.  For  if  the  Bible  is  absolutely  its 
own  interpreter,  there  can  be  no  necessity  for  their 
interpretations  :  tliere  can  be  no  necessity  for  any 
class  of  men  employed  to  study  and  explain  it. 
Whether  we  are  acquainted  with  Hfbrew  and 
Gr^^elv,  or  know  only  our  mother  tongue  ;  whether 
we  are  provided  with  a  store  of  ancient  learning,  or 


Xa  LECTURE  XIII.     '^ 

our  philosophy  is  couiined  to  the  awl  and  the  anvil, 
we  are  all  equally  qualified  to  understand  the  Bi- 
ble. Hence  the  early  reformers,  who  were  among 
the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  their  age,  have 
been  converted  into  patrons  of  ignorance  :  and  a 
Reformation,  which  was  produced  by  erudition,  has 
been  represented  as  indebted  for  its  origin  to  the  to- 
ix\  absence  of  human  learning. 

Another  expression  used  by  our  Reformers, 
namely,  ^'the  perspicuity  of  the  Sacred  Writings, " 
has  been  no  less  abused  than  tlie  similar  expression 
already  noted.  When  they  argued  for  the  per- 
sjnciiity  of  the  Bible,  they  intended  not  to  argue 
against  the  application  of  Learning,  but  against 
the  application  of  Tradition  to  the  exposition  of 
Scripture.  The  Church  of  Rome,  on  the  ground, 
and  indeed  just  ground,  that  the  Bible  required 
explanation,  contended,  that  this  explanation  must 
be  sought  in  Tradition.  No  I  said  our  Reformers; 
We  need  not  the  aid  of  your  Tradition ;  to  us 
the  Bible  is  sufficiently  perspicuous  icithout  it. 
Here  then  they  made  their  stand ;  here  it  was, 
that  they  unfurled  the  banner  of  the  Reformation. 
But  in  rejecting  Tradition  as  necessary  to  make 
(he  Bible  perspicuous,  they  never  meant  to  ileclare, 
that  the  Bible  was  alike  perspicuous,  to  the 
learned  and  the  unlearned.  If  they  had,  they 
would  never  have  supplied  the  unlearned  with 
explanations  of  it.  But  the  ^perspicuity  of  the 
Bible,'  i«  again  an  expression,  wliich  lias  been  so 


LECTURE  XIII.  i9 

construed  in  modern  times,  as  if  the  genuine 
principle  of  Protestantism  required  us  to  reject 
what  the  authors  of  Protestantism  have  j^rovided. 
In  fact  the  learned,  as  well  as  the  unlearned,  r.re 
in  need  of  continual  help,  to  understand  the  Bible ; 
men  already  provided  with  a  store  of  biblical 
erudition  are  perpetually  feeling  the  necessity  of 
further  information ;  the  more  we  advance,  the 
more  sensible  do  we  become  of  what  we  want  to 
know  ;  and  only  superficial  readers  will  imagine, 
that  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible  is  a  matter  of  easy 
attainment.  Fortunately  for  mankind,  the  passages 
of  Scripture,  which  we  are  most  concerned  to 
understand,  are  those,  which  are  understood  with 
the  greatest  ease.  Neither  a  critical  nor  a  philo- 
logical apparatus  is  necessary  to  discover  the  will 
of  God  in  what  relates  to  our  own  conduct.  How- 
ever difficult  it  may  be,  to  penetrate  into  the 
councils  of  the  Deity,  and  to  fathom  the  depth 
of  his  decrees,  the  laws,  which  he  has  prescribed 
for  the  government  of  onr  own  actions,  and  in 
which  a  misunderstanding  might  be  fatal,  ar* 
intelligible  to  the  meanest  capacity.  But  the  diver- 
sity^ which  prevails  in  many  articles  of  faith  among 
different  Christian  communities,  shews  the  diffi. 
culty  of  rightly  understanding  the  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, on  which  the  Articles,  wherein  we  differ,  are 
founded.  And  if  we  fuither  consider  the  7nanifold 
attainments,  which  are  necessary  to  understand 
the  original  vScriptures  in   all   their   various  rela- 


20  LECTURE  XIIl. 

tions,  we  shall  not  conclude,  tliat  they  are  alike 
perspicuous  to  the  learned  and  the  unlearned. 
Augustine,  who  was  not  in  other  respects  an 
advocate  for  deep  erudition,  though  few  jnen  have 
surpassed  hira  in  acuteness  of  reasoning,  has 
acknowledged,  in  a  Letter  to  Volusian,  the  great- 
ness of  the  difficulties  which  attend  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture.  '^Non  quod  ad  ea,  quie 
nccessaria  sunt  saluti,  tanta  perveniatur  difficultate  ; 
sed,  cum  quisque  ibi  fideui  tenuerit,  sine  qua  ^^ie 
recteque  non  vivitur,  tani  multa,  tamque  multipli- 
cihus  mysteriorum  umhraculis  opacata,  intelligenda 
pro&cientibus  restant,  tantaque  non  solum  in  verbis^ 
quibus  ii-ta  dicta  sunt,  sed  etiani  in  rebiis  quse 
intelligendse  sunt,  latet  altitudo  sapientise,  ut 
annosissimis,  acutissimis,  flagrantissimis  cupidi- 
tate  descendi  hoc  contingat,  quod  eadem  Scriptura 
quodam  loco  habet,  ^  Cum  consummaverit  homo, 
tunc  incipit.'*'     In  the  same   epistle  he   calls  the 

Scripture  ^'omTzz&its  accessibilis paucisshuis 

penetrabilis.''  Of  the  easy  and  obvious  passages, 
such  as  relate  to  our  own  practice,  he  says,  "  Sine 
fuco  ad  cor  loquitur  indoctorura  atque  doctorum.'^ 
But  of  those,  wliich  require  the  aid  of  erudition, 
he  says,  ^'  Non  audeat  accedere  mens  tardiuscula  et 
inerudita,  tanquam  pauper  ad  divitem." 

Lastly,  let  us  guard  against  the  prevalent  abuse 
of  another  position,  which  was  maintained  by  our 
Reformers,  and  likewise  in  reference  to  Tradition. 
When  Tradition  was  discarded  as  a  Rule  of  Faith 


LECTURE  XIII.  ai 

independent  of  tlie  Bible,  our  Reformers  of  course 
maintained,  that  tlie  Bible  alone  contained  all 
things,  which  were  necessary  for  salvation.  To  the 
Bible  alone,  to  tlie  Bible  u'ithout  Tradition^  did 
they  appeal  therefore  in  opposition  to  the  Chureh 
of  Rome :  and,  that  all  men  might  be  enabled  to 
judge,  whether  they  rightly  appealed,  they  wisely 
insisted,  that  the  privilege  of  reading  the  Bible 
should  be  common  to  all  men.  But  the  Commen- 
taries, which  they  wrote,  beside  the  Confessions  of 
Faith,  which  they  composed,  may  convince  us, 
that  when  they  put  the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  the 
people,  they  thought  it  necessary  to  add  an  expla- 
nation of  it.  Our  Reformers  therefore  carried 
tJieir  opposition  to  the  Church  of  Rome  beyoni 
the  mere  act  of  giving  a  Bible  without  note  or 
comment.  The  sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
without  the  aid  of  Tradition,  did  not  imply  in 
their  opinion  the  inutility  of  all  explanation.  Nor, 
because  the  Bible  contains  all  things,  which  are 
necessary  for  salvation,  did  our  Reformers  con- 
clude, that  in  giving  the  Bible  alone,  they  did  all 
things,  which  were  wanted  on  their  parts,  for  re- 
ligious instruction.  When  Tradition  was  dis- 
carded, the  Bible  only  became  the  religion  of  the 
Protestant;  the  Bible  only  was  recognized  as  the. 
fountain  of  religious  truth.  But  so  apprehensive 
were  the  early  Reformers,  that  the  streams,  which 
might  be  drawn  from  it,  would  lose  the  purity  of 
their  source,  and  become  tainted  in  their  progress. 


23  LECTURE  Xlir. 

unless  care  were  taken  to  lead  tliem  into  proper 
channels,  that  these  Reformers  employed  the  most 
strenuous  exertions,  to  prevent  their  flowing,  either 
to  Popery  again,  or  in  any  other  direction,  where 
falsehood  might  he  mingled  with  the  truth.  It 
was  chiefly  for  tJiis  purpose,  that  they  composed 
both  Expositions  of  Scripture,  and  those  Con- 
fessions of  Faith,  to  which  their  followers  assented 
on  the  ground,  that  our  Reformers  had  rightly 
explained  the  Scripture.  On  this  gi'ound  we  as- 
sent in  particular  to  our  oicn  Liturgy  and  Articles  : 
and  if  we  neglect  them,  we  neglect  the  Faith,  to 
which  we  profess  ourselves  attached.  On  the  other 
hand,  as  our  Liturgy  and  Ai'ticles  are  avowedly 
founded  on  the  Bible,  it  is  the  special  duty  of  those^ 
who  are  set  apart  for  the  ministry,  to  compare 
them  with  the  Bible,  and  see  that  their  pretensions 
are  well  founded.  But  then  our  interpretation  of 
the  Bible  must  be  conducted  independently  of  that, 
of  which  the  truth  is  to  be  ascertained  by  it.  Our 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  therefore  must  not  be 
determined  by  religious  system:  and  we  must 
follow  the  example  of  our  Reformers,  who  supplied 
the  place  of  Tradition  by  Reason  and  Learning, 
Let  us  beware  then,  as  Protestants,  of  undertaking 
that  important  office,  without  due  preparation. 
Wouhl  any  man  undertake  to  expound  the  law  of 
the  land,  without  a  due  preparation  in  the  study 
of  the  law?  Or,  if  any  one  thus  unprepared  should 
venture  on  the  task,  would  hearers  or  readers  be 


LECTURE  Xni.  ,23 

found  sufficiently  credulous  to  believe  in  his  expo- 
sitions ?  And  shall  the  law  of  God  be  treated  with 
greater  levity,  than  the  law  of  man  P 

Here  then,  I  trust,  the  arguments  for  theo= 
logical  learning  may  be  concluded.  It  shall  be  the 
business  therefore  of  the  next,  and  of  the  following 
Lectures,  to  give  directions  for  the  application  of  it. 
And  let  us  all  implore  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God, 
while  we  are  conscientiously  striving  to  discover 
the  truth.  If  we  employ  the  means,  which  Grod 
has  provided  us  for  the  understanding  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, we  may  hope,  that  the  grace  of  God  will  be 
granted  to  our  honest  endeavours.  But,  if  we  7ieg- 
lect  those  means,  let  us  not  deceive  ourselve  by  the 
vain  expectation,  that  the  Almighty  will  interpose 
by  supernatural  means,  to  supply  the  defects,  which 
we  ourselves  occasion,  when  we  disregard  the  nat- 
ural means,  which  he  has  already  furnished  for 
that  purpose. 


LECTURE  XIT. 


The  first  office  of  an  interpreter  is  the  investi- 
gation of  single  words :  for  he  must  understand 
the  elements,  of  which  a  sentence  is  composed,  be- 
fore he  can  judge  of  their  combination.  Now  in  all 
languages  icords  are  only  signs.  When  they  are 
spoken,  they  are  signs  to  the  hearer  of  wliat  was 
thought  by  the  speaker:  when  they  are  written, 
they  are  signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was  thought  by 
the  writer.  The  interpretation  therefore  of  any 
word,  whether  written  by  an  ancient  or  by  a  mod- 
ern author,  must  depend  on  the  following  question ; 
What  notion  did  the  author  himself  affix  to  that 
word,  when  he  committed  it  to  writing  ?  Conse- 
quently, all  our  inquiries  into  the  meaning  of  a 
word  in  any  particular  passage,  inquiries  which 
sometimes  diverge  in  numerous  directions,  must  be 
all  brought  at  last  to  concentre  in  that  single  point, 
the  notion  affixed  to  it  in  that  passage  by  the  author. 

The  discovery  of  this  notion  will  be  attended 
with  greater  or  less  difficulty,  according  to  the  re- 
lative situation  of  the  reader  to  the  author.    If  the 


LECTURE  XIV.  3S 

latter  uses  the  same  language,  which  is  spoken  by 
the  former,  and  writes  on  a,  familiar  subject,  he  will 
^e  readily  understood,  because  he  employs  expres- 
sions, of  which  the  meaning  is  determined  by  usage 
equally  known  to  both  parties.  In  such  cases,  the 
reader,  unless  he  has  a  previous  desire  of  pervert- 
ing the  author's  meaning,  will  commonly  under- 
stand the  words,  as  they  were  intended  to  be  under- 
stood :  they  will  really  be  signs  to  the  reader,  of 
what  was  thought  by  the  Avriter.  If,  instead  of 
writing  on  a  familiar  subject,  he  writes  on  mat- 
ters of  science,  the  difficulty  of  interpretation  will 
indeed  be  increased  ;  but  this  additional  difficulty 
will  not  be  of  that  description,  which  creates  ambi- 
guity. The  words  will  still  perform  their  functions 
with  exactness  :  for  the  definitions,  which  are  used 
in  science,  prevent  all  misunderstanding.  The  El- 
ements of  Euclid  will  be  understood,  in  every  age 
and  nation,  precisely  in  the  same  sense,  as  they  were 
understood  by  the  author.  In  works  composed  on 
morality  and  religion,  wiiere  mixed  modes,  which  are 
not  easily  defined,  are  the  objects  of  contemplation, 
it  is  always  more  diffi«ult  to  ascertain  an  author's 
meaning,  however  attentive  he  himself  may  have 
been  to  the  choice  of  his  expressions.  But  in 
works  of  fancy  and  imagination,  where,  even  in 
the  author's  own  mind,  precision  and  discrimination 
are  frequently  overlooked  in  the  combinations  of 
poetic  imagery,  occasional  ambiguity  will  iinavoid* 
ably  take  place  in  the  interpretation  of  his  words. 


26  LECTURE  XIV. 

If  the  work,  which  we  undertake  to  interpret, 
is  written  in  a  foreign  language,  we  shall  not  only 
have    to  encounter  the    preceding  difficulties,  ac- 
cording  to  their  several   gradations,  but  the   ad- 
ditional   difficulty  of  understanding  the  language 
itself.     If  indeed  it  be  a  modern  language,  and, 
beside  the  assistance  derived  from  grammars  and 
dictionaries,  the   reader    lias    the     advantage   of 
conversing  with  those,  whose  language  it  is,  the 
words  of  that  language  may  gradually  become  to 
him  as  familiar  signs,  as  the  words  of  his  oicn 
language.     But  if  the  work,  which  we  undertake 
to  interpret,  is  written    in  a  dead    language,    an 
accumulation  of  difficulty  will  take  place,  according 
to   the  extent   or    the   scantiness   of  the   means, 
which  we  possess,  of  discovering  the  meaning  of 
the  words,  which  are  extant  in  that    language. 
This  is  a  kind  of  difficulty,  entirely  distinct   from 
that,  which  attends  what  is  commonly  called  the 
learning  of  a  dead  language.     A  dead  language, 
which    can  be     acquired  only  by   grammar  and 
lexicon,  is  more  or  less  easily  learnt,  according 
to  the   paucity  or   abundance   of  its   words ,   the 
simplicity  or   variety   of  its   inflexions ^   and   the 
clearness  or  intricacy  of  its  construction.     Hence 
the  Hebrew  language  is  more  easily  learnt,  than 
the    Greek :    yet    the    examples,  in    which  it    is 
difficult  to  ascertain  with  precision  the  meaning 
of  words,  are  more  frequent  in  the  former,  than 
in  the  latter.     A  passage  may  be  easily  construedf 


LECTURE  XIV.  27 

yet  not  easily  understood.  When  the  structure 
of  a  sentence  is  involved  in  no  obscurity,  we  can 
easily  put  togetliev,  by  the  help  of  a  Lexicon, 
a  set  of  words  in  one  language,  corresponding  to 
a  set  of  words  in  another.  But  the  correspond- 
ence  will  not  necessarily  be  such,  that  the 
meaning,  expressed  by  the  translator,  shall  be  the 
meaning  intended  by  the  author.  The  meaning 
of  words  is  purely  conventional ;  their  connexion 
with  the  notions,  which  thej^  convey,  is  founded  in 
the  practice  or  the  usage  of  those,  who  speak  the 
language,  to  which  the  words  belong.  In  a  living 
language  this  usage  is  known  from  conversation. 
But  in  a  dead  language  it  can  be  discovered  only 
by  reading :  and  therefore  the  fewer  hooks  we  have 
in  that  language,  the  more  circumscribed  will  be 
our  means  of  discovering  what  was  the  usage  of  it, 
when  it  was  spoken.  Now  the  Old  Testament  i« 
the  only  work,  which  remains,  in  the  antient  He- 
brew :  nor  have  we  any  thing  like  a  Lexicon  or 
Glossary  composed,  while  it  was  a  living  language. 
Lideed  it  ceased  to  be  a  living  language  so  long 
ago  as  the  Babylonish  Captivity ;  for  Jerusalem 
was  re-built  by  Jews,  who  were  born  in  Chaldea, 
and  who  returned  to  the  country  of  their  ancestors 
with  the  language  of  their  conquerors. 

It  is  a  matter  therefore  of  great  importance  to- 
the  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  to  know 
the  sources,  from  which  we  derive  our  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  language.     It  is  true,  that  we  hav^ 


28  LECTURE  XiV. 

tlie  advantage  of  an  English  translation,  as  well  in 
the  Old  Testament,  as  in  the  *N*ew :  hut  no  man 
would  wlioUy  confide  in  a  modern  translation,  who 
had  the  means  of  understanding  the  original.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  of  consequence  to  know  how  far  our 
translators  themselves  were  in  possession  of  those 
means,  because  this  knowledge  must  determine  the 
degree  of  confidence  to  be  placed  in  them.  Let  us 
consider  therefore  in  the  first  instance  what  were 
the  fvimarij  sources,  from  which  the  knowledge  of 
Hebrew'  was  drawn  ;  and  in  the  next  place  let  us 
inquire  into  those,  which  had  the  chief  influence  on. 
our  modern  translations. 

As  Chaldeewas  thelanguage  spoken  by  the  Jews 
of  Jerusalem  after  the  Babylonish  Captivity,  they 
gradually  translated  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  or  at 
least  the  greatest  part  of  them,  into  that  languge. 
While  Chaldee  was  spoken  in  the  southern  part  of 
Palestine,  Syriac  was  the  language  of  Galilee. 
Now  we  have  a  Syriac  translation  of  the  whole  He- 
brew Bible,  as  well  as  of  the  Greek  Testament. 
Since  then  we  have  Chaldee  and  Syriac  translations 
from  the  Hebrew,  they  are  sources,  from  which  we 
derive  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  true  that 
Chaldee  and  Syriac  have  themselves  long  ceased  to 
be  spoken,  if  we  except  perhaps  some  villages  of 
Palestine,  wliere  it  is  said,  that  a  remnant  of  them 
is  still  preserved.  But  we  have  the  means  of  as- 
certaining the  sense  of  Syriac  words  from  the  wri- 
tings of  the  Syrian  Fathers^  especially  as  some  of 


LECTURE  XIV.  39 

them  were  translated  into  Greek,  and  the  knowl- 
edge of   Chatdee  was  long  preserved  anioug  the 
Jews,  who  retained  it  as  a  learned  language  many 
ages  after  their  final  dispcL'sion.     Chaldeeand  Syr- 
iac  assist  also  each  other :  for  in  fact  they  are  not 
so  much  different  languages,  as  different  dialects 
of  the   same  language.     Tlie  chief  difference  be- 
tween them  consists  in  the  vowel  points,  or  the  mode 
of  pronunciation.     And  though  the  forms  of  the 
letters   are  very  unlike,  the    correspondence   be- 
tween the  languages  (or  rather  dialects)  themselves 
is  so  close,  that  if  Chaldee  be  written  with  Syriac 
letters  without  points,  it  becomes  Syriac,  with  th& 
exception  of  a  single  inflexion  in  the  formation  of 
the  verbs. 

Another  oriental  source,  from  which  we  derive 
a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  words,  is  the  Arabic.  The 
most  ancient  among  tlie  Arabic  versions  of  the  He- 
brew Bible  was  made  indeed  above  a  thousand 
years  after  Hebrew  had  ceased  to  be  spoken.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  means  of  deter- 
mining with  the  greatest  exactness  the  sense  of 
Arabic  words,  because  Arabic  is  still  a  living  lan- 
guage, and  is  spoken  over  a  greater  extent  of  coun- 
try, than  almost  any  other  language.  It  is  at  the 
same  time  a  kind  of  classical  language :  it  has  au- 
thors on  almost  every  subject;  and  has  undergone 
the  investigation  of  native  grammarians  and  lexicog- 
raphers. Its  importance  therefore  to  the  interpreta- 
tioH  of  Hebrew  i«  apparent.     It  serves  indeed  as  a, 


30  LECTURE  XIV. 

leey  to  that  language ;  for  it  is  not  only  allied  to  the 
Hebrew,  but  is  at  the  same  time  so  copious,  as  to 
eontain  the  roots  of  almost  all  the  words  in  the  He- 
brew Bible. 

But  of  all  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  there  is  none  so  important,  both  to  the  critic, 
and  to  the  interpreter,  as  the  Greek  version,  which 
is  known  by  the  name  of  the  Septuagint.  Nor  is 
the  advantage,  derived  from  the  Septuagint,  confin- 
ed to  the  Hebrew.  It  is  a  source  of  interpretation 
also  to  the  Greek  Testament :  and  so  valuable  a 
source,  that  none  other  can  be  compared  with  it. 
The  Septuagint  version  was  made  in  Egypt,  under 
the  government  of  the  Ptolemies,  for  the  use  of  the 
Jews  then  settled  iu  that  country,  who  were  as  much 
in  need  of  a  Greek  version,  as  the  Jews  of  Palestine 
were  then  in  need  of  a  Chaldee  version.  The 
Egyptian  Jews,  to  whom  Greek  was  become  their 
vernacular  language,  were  of  course  desirous  of 
possessing  in  Greek  a  faithful  representation  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  But  then  the  structuve  of  the 
two  languages  was  so  widely  different,  that  the  trans- 
lators, adhering  to  the  original,  more  closely  than 
perhaps  necessity  required,  retained  Hebrew /orms 
and  modes  of  expression,  while  the  words,  which 
they  were  writing,  were  Greek.  The  language  there- 
fore of  the  Septuagint  is  a  Wndof  Hebrew -Greekf 
which  a  native  of  Athens  might  sometimes  have 
found  difficult  to  understand.  But.  as  this  version 
became  the  Bible  of  all  the  Jews^  who  were  dispers- 


LECTURE  XIV.  S.l 

ed  througliout  the  countries,  where  Greek  was  spok. 
en,  it  became  the  standard  oi  their  Greek  language. 
St.  Paul  himself,  who  was  born  in  Tarsus,  and  was 
accustomed  from  his  childhood  to  hear  the  Septua- 
gintresid  in  the  synagogue  of  that  city,  adopted  the 
Hebrew  idioms  of  the  Greek  version.  And  when 
he  was  removed  to  Jerusalem  and  placed  under  the 
guidance  of  Gamaliel,  the  Hebrew  tincture  of  St. 
Paul's  Greek  could  have  sufl'ered  no  diminution. 
The  other  Apostles  were  all  natives  of  Palestine ; 
as  was  also  the  Evangelist  St.  Mark,  and  probably 
the  Evangelist  St.  Luke.  TViefr  language  therefore 
was  Syriac  or  Chaldee,  of  which  the  turns  of  ex- 
pression had  a  close  correspondence  with  those  of 
the  ancient  Hebrew.  Consequently,  when  they 
wrote  in  Greek,  their  language  could  not  fail  to  re- 
semble the  language,  which  had  been  used  by  the 
Greek  translators.  And,  as  every  Jew,  who  read 
Greek  at  all,  (which  they  who  icrote  in  it  must  have 
done)  would  read  the  Greek  Bible,  the  style  of  the 
Septuagint  again  operated  in  forming  the  style  of  the 
Greek  Testament.  Both  the  Hebrew  Bible  there- 
fore and  the  Greek  Testament  are  so  closely  con- 
nected with  the  Septuagint,  as  well  in  their  lan- 
guage as  in  their  matter,  that  the  Septuagint  is  a 
source  of  interpretation,  alike  important  to  the  one 
and  to  the  other. 

TVe  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  that  source, 
from  which  we  have  most  copiously  drawn,  and 
which  has  had  greater  influence  on  our  modern  trans- 


33  LECTURE  XIV. 

lations,  than  is  commonly  supposed.  This  source 
is  the  Latin  Vulgate.  It  has  heen  applied  to  the 
interpretation,  as  well  of  the  JV'eit',  as  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. But  it  is  of  more  especial  use  in  the  lat- 
ter, because  our  sources  of  intelligence  in  respect  to 
Hebrew  words,  are  more  circumscribed  than  in  res- 
pect to  Greek.  Its  intrinsic  value  also  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  greater  than  in  the  New.  The  Latin 
Vulgate  in  the  New  Testament  was  only  corrected 
by  Jerom  ;  but  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is  a  trans- 
lation made  by  Jerora  himself,  and  made  imme- 
diately from  the  Hebrew.  Now  Jerom  was  by 
far  the  most  learned  among  all  the  Fathers  of 
the  Latin  Church :  and  in  order  to  make  his 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  as  correct  as 
possible,  he  passed  sev^eral  years  in  Palestine, 
where  he  was  assisted  by  learned  Jews,  belonging 
to  the  celebrated  college  of  Tiberias.  Indeed  the 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  was 
acknowledged  by  our  early  Reformers,  in  the  ex- 
tensive use  wliich  they  made  of  it  themselves^ 
Wickliife's  English  translation  was  made  entirely 
from  the  Vulgate :  and  Luther  himself,  when  he 
made  his  Grerman  translation,  translated  indeed 
from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  but  with  the  as- 
sistancp  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  This  assistance  is 
"visible  throughout ;  and  passages  have  been  discov- 
ered in  LuMier's  German  translation,  which  agree 
with  the  I.  atin,  even  where  the  Latin  differs  from 
the  Hebrew. 


LECTURE  XIV.  S3 

But  the  use  of  the  Latin  Vulgate,  in  translating 
irom  the  Hebrew,  was  at  that  period  not  merely 
matter  of  convenience.  It  was  matter  also  of  neces- 
sity. Without  the  Vulgate,  Luther  would  not  have 
possessed  the  means  of  translating  from  the  He- 
brew. The  knowledge  of  Hebrew  had  for  ages 
preceding  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  been  con- 
fined to  the  learned  among  the  Jews;  and  when 
Luther  undertook  the  task  of  translating  from  the 
original  Scriptures,  this  knowledge  had  begun  only 
to  dawn  among  Christians.  The  comprehensive 
grammars  and  lexicons,  to  which  we  have  now  ac- 
cess, are  sources  of  intelligence,  which  were  not  open 
to  our  early  Reformers.  The  elder  Buxtorf,  one  of 
the  fathers  of  Hebrew  learning  among  Christians, 
was  not  born  till  after  Luther's  death  ,*  and  Luther's 
only  helps  in  the  form  of  a  Hebrew  Lexicon,  were 
those  of  Reuchlin  and  Mlinster,  extracted  from  the 
meager  glossaries  of  the  Rabbins.  Under  sjich  cir- 
cumstances a  translation  from  the  Hebrew,  without 
the  intervention  of  the  Latin,  would  have  been 
wholly  impracticable.  . .    jj 

Here  the  subject  requires  a  few  observations  on 
our  own  authorised  version.  It  was  published  by 
royal  authority  in  the  reign  of  James  the  First,  hav- 
ing been  then  compiled  out  of  various  English  Bi- 
bles which  had  been  printed  since  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.  To  judge  therefore  of  our  authorised 
version,  we  should  have  some  knowledge  of  those 
'previous  English  Bibles.     The  first  of  them  was  a 


34  LECTURE  XIV. 

translation  made  abroad,  partly  by  Tyndal,  and 
partly  by  Rogers,  but  chiefly  by  the  former.  It  was 
undertaken  soon  after  the  Reformation  commenced 
in  Germany^  and  therefore  several  ye  rs  before  the 
Reformation  was  introduced  into  England.  What 
knowledge  Tyndal  had  of  Hebrew  is  unknown ; 
But  he  of  course  understood  the  Latin  Vulgate ; 
and  he  was  likewise  acquainted  with  German. 
Indeed  he  passed  some  time  with  Luther  at  Wit- 
tenberg; and  the  ])ooks,  which  Tyndal  selected 
for  translation  into  English,  were  always  those, 
wliich  Luther  had  already  translated  into  German. 
Now  Luther  did  not  translate  according  to  the  or- 
der, in  which  the  several  books  follow  each  other  in 
the  Bible :  he  translated  in  an  order  of  liis  own,  and 
the  same  order  was  observed  also  by  Tyndal,  who 
translated  ft/fe?*  Luther.  We  may  conclude  therefore 
that  TyndaVs  translation  was  taken  at  least  in  part 
from  Luther's  :  and  this  conclusion  is  further  con- 
firmed by  the  Gerwanisms,  vfhich  it  contains,  some 
of  which  are  still  preserved  in  our  authorised  ver- 
sion. Further,  when  Rogers  had  completed  what 
Tyndal  left  unfinished,  he  added  notes  and  prefa- 
ces from  Luther.  The  translation  of  the  whole 
Bible,  thus  made  by  Tyvidal  and  Rogers,  was  pub- 
lished at  Hamburg  under  the  feigned  name  of  Mat- 
thewe  :  and  hence  it  has  been  called  Matthe  we's  Bi- 
ble. Subsequent  English  editions  were  Coverdale's 
Bible,  Cranmer's  Bible,  (called  also  the  Great  Bible, 
and  sometimes  by  the^iames  of  the  printers,  Grafton 


lECTURE  XIV.  Ss 

and  Whitchurch,)  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  Parkers  or 
the  Bishops'  Bible,  which  last  was  published  ia 
i5tiSy  and  from  that  time  was  used  in  our  Churches 
till  the  introduction  of  our  present  version.  Now 
the  Bishops'  Bible,  as  appears  from  Archbishop 
Parker's  instructions,  was  only  a  revision  of  Cran- 
mer's  Bible :  and  Cranraer's  Bible  was  only  a  cor- 
rection (in  some  places  for  the  worse)  of  Matthewe's 
Bible,  that  is,  of  the  translation  made  by  Tyndal 
and  Rogers.  We  see  therefore  the  genealogy  of 
the  Bishops^  Bible  ;  and  the  Bishops'  Bible  was 
made  the  basis  of  our  present  authorised  version. 
For  the  first  rule,  given  by  James  the  First  to  the 
compilers  of  it,  was  this,  ^*  The  ordinary  Bible^ 
read  in  the  Church,  commonly  called  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  to  be  followed,  and  as  little  altered,  as  the 
original  would  permit."  But  whenever  Matthewe^e 
Bible,  or  Coverdale's,  or  Whitchurch's,  or  the  Ge- 
neva Bible  came  nearer  to  the  original,  (that  is  to 
the  editions  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  and  Greek  Testa- 
ment then  in  use,)  the  text  of  these  other  English 
Bibles  was  ordered  to  be  adopted.  Now  as  this 
collation  was  made  by  some  of  the  most  distinguish- 
ed scholars  in  the  age  of  James  the  First,  it  is  pro- 
bable, that  our  authorised  version  is  as  faithful  a 
representation  of  the  original  Scriptures  as  collide 
have  been  formed  at  that  period.  But  when  we 
consider  the  immense  accession  which  has  been 
since  made,  both  to  our  critical  and  to  our  philo- 
logical  apparatus ;  when  we  consider,   that  th*?- 


36  LECTURE  Xn. 

whole  mass  of  literature,  commeucing  mththe  Lon- 
don Polyglot  and  continued  to  Griesbach's  Greek 
Testament,  was  collected  subsequently  to  that  pe- 
riod ;  when  we  consider  that  the  most  important 
sources  of  intelligence  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
original  Scriptures  were  likeicise  opened  after  that 
period,  we  cannot  possibly  pretend  that  our  author- 
ised version  does  not  require  amendment.  On  this 
subject  we  need  only  refer  to  the  work  of  Arch- 
bishop Newcome,  entitled,  "  An  Historical  Yievv 
*^  of  the  English  Biblical  Translations ;  the  expe- 
"  diency  of  revising  by  authority  our  present  Eng- 
**  lish  Translation  ;  and  the  means  of  executing 
"  such  a  revision. ''  Indeed  Dr.  Macknight,  in  the 
second  section  of  his  general  Preface,  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  of  our  authorised  version,  "  It  is  by  no 
"means  such  a  just  representation  of  the  inspired 
*'  originals,  as  merits  to  be  implicitly  relied  on, 
*'  for  determining  the  controverted  articles  of  the 
"  Christian  faith,  and  for  quieting  the  dissensions, 
*^  which  have  rent  the  Church/' 

In  excuse  however  for  neglecting  the  original 
languages,  and  trusting  to  a  modern  translation,  it 
has  been  lately  urged,  that  a  man  may  spend  his 
life  in  the  study  of  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  yet 
not  become  master  of  the  originals,  while  the  mere 
English  scholar,  who  is  versed  in  the  phraseology 
of  our  authorised  version,  may  be  said  to  have 
wade  no  inconsiderable  progress  in  divinity.  In 
answer  to  this  excuse  we  may  propose  the  following 


LECTURE  XIV.  37 

questions  :  If,  with  our  preseut  critical  and  pliilo- 
log^ical  apparatus,  toe  are  unable  to  discover  the 
meaning  of  the  originals,  how  could  that  meaning 
have  been  discovered  by  our  early  translators  ? 
How  can  ice  make  a  considerable  progress  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  by  reading  only  a 
translation,  if  tlie  understanding  of  the  originals  is 
impeded  by  diiTiculties,  which  tlie  very  authors  of 
that  translation  must  have  found  much  harder  to 
surmount?  In  the  study  of  the  Bible  therefore, 
let  those,  who  are  set  apart  for  the  Christian  min- 
istry, consider  well  what  is  required  from  a  good 
interpreter.  Would  it  not  be  thought  absurd,  if  a 
man  ignorant  of  Greek  undertook  to  write  a  Com- 
mentary on  Homer,  or  a  man  ignorant  of  Latin  to 
write  a  Commentary  on  Virgil  ?  And  is  it  not  equal- 
ly absurd,  to  comment  on  the  New  Testament 
without  a  knowledge  of  Greek,  or  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment without  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew?  A  knowl- 
edge of  Greek  is,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  attain- 
ed by  all,  who  have  had  the  benefit  of  a  learned 
education.  But  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  which  is 
equally  VQqu'iv&a  from  tht  foreign  Protestant  Clergy, 
is  considered  as  less  necessary  in  this  country : 
and  indeed  it  is  so  far  less  necessary,  as  a  perfect 
understanding  of  the  Old  Testament  is  less  neces- 
sary to  a  Christian^  than  a  perfect  understanding 
of  the  JSTew.  Yet  we  should  surely  endeavour  to 
obtain  at  least  so  much  knowledge  of  it,  as  may 

enable  us  to  compare  with  the  original  our  English 
6 


38  LECTURE  XIV. 

translation,  and  see  th  it  ths  te\t  itself  is  accurate — 
before  we  attempt  an  interpretation  of  that  text. 

A  farther  excuse  for  dlsrei^arding  the  originali 
and  conlidiag  in  a  modern  translation,  has  been 
founded  in  an  arii;umeut,  which  to  a  certain  extent 
is  indisputably  true.  It  has  been  urged,  that  even 
if  we  do  learn  the  original  languages,  we  must  still 
confide  in  a  translator  ;  and,  that  whether  we  look 
into  a  Lexicon,  which  gives  us  the  meaning  of  sin- 
gle words,  or  into  a  Translation,  which  gives  us 
the  meaning  of  them  all  together,  we  are  dependent 
on  the  Lexicographer  in  the  one  case,  as  on  the 
Translator  in  the  other.  But  there  is  a  material 
difference,  both  in  the  hind,  and  in  the  extent  of 
the  confidence,  which  we  thus  repose.  If  we  de- 
pend on  a  continued  translation,  we  place  a  two- 
fold confidence  in  the  translator ;  a  confidence  in 
his  knowledge  of  each  single  word,  and  a  confi- 
dence in  his  right  construction  of  them.  But  our 
confidence  in  the  Lexicographer  is  only  of  the  for- 
mer description  :  we  learn  to  construe  for  our- 
selves,  and  thus  are  enabled  to  judge,  whether 
others  have  construed  rightly.  AVe  are  enabled 
also  to  judge  whether  the  translator  has  added  or 
omitted,  which  we  can  never  know  without  examin- 
ing the  original.  Nor  is  the  confidence,  which  we 
place  in  a  Lexicographer  even  for  single  words,  by 
any  means  so  implicit,  as  when  we  trust  to  a  con- 
tinued translation  In  the  latter  case,  we  must 
whollij  rely;  both    on    ihe  judgment    and  on    the 


LECTURE  XIV.  39 

fidelity  of  the  translator,  being  destitute  of  that 
knowledge,  without  which  we  can  form  no  estimate 
whatever.  But  the  case  is  widely  different,  when 
we  consult  a  Lexicon.  It  is  not  in  the  fower  of 
a  Lexicographer  to  impose  on  us,  as  a  common 
translator  can.  In  a  Lexicon  (at  least  if  it  is  of  any 
value)  we  frequently  find  the  same  word  quoted  in 
various  passages,  which  assists  us  in  determining  its 
meaning  ;  if  it  is  a  derivative,  we  become  acquaint- 
ed with  the  primative,  with  which  its  meaning  must 
have  some,  connexion  ;  and  if  it  has  various  senses, 
(which  we  should  never  know  from  a  continued 
translation,)  we  may  judge  from  the  context  and 
other  circumstances,  which  of  those  various  senses 
is  best  adapted  to  any  particular  passage.  If  we 
extend  our  knowledge  to  the  oriental  languages 
allied  to  the  Hebrew,  and  apply  also  the  Septu- 
agint  version,  the  dependence  on  our  Lexicon  will 
hQ  further  diminished.  We  ourselves  shall  obtain 
possession  of  the  sources,  from  which  the  Lexicog- 
rapher himself  must  have  drawn  his  materials,  and 
thence  we  shall  be  enabled  to  judge,  whether  he 
has  properly  applied  them. 

Lastly,  let  us  consider  the  additional  obligation 
of  studying  the  original  Scriptures,  which  lies  es- 
pecially on  those,  who  pretend  to  the  title  of  Prot- 
estant. To  repose  implicit  confidence  in  a  transla- 
tion f  is  characteristic  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Let 
the  Church  of  Home  decree  of  her  authorised  ver- 
sion, Ut  nemo  illam  rejicere  quovis prwtextu  andeat 


40  LECTURE  XIV. 

vel  prcesumat.     But  let  no  Protestant  apply  these 
words  of  the  Council  of  Trent  to  his  oicn  authorised 
version,  whatever  predilection  he  may  have  for  it 
himself.    It  is  the  privilege  of  Protestants  to  appeal 
to  the  inspired  originals.     We  do  not  believe,  that 
our  translators  were  inspired,  though  the  Jews  be- 
lieved it  of  their  Sejituagint  translators.     The  ear-' 
ly  Reformers^  especially  Luther  and  Melancthon, 
thought  it  one  of  the  most  important  advantages  ob- 
tained by  the  Reformation,  that  the  learned  were 
no  longer  forced  to  walk  in  the  trammels  of  an  au- 
thorised Version,  but  were  at  liberty  to  open  the 
originals.     Nor  have  the  foreign  Protestant  Cler- 
gy, from  the  period  of  the  Reformation  to  the  pres- 
ent age,  appealed,  either  in  x4.cademic  disputations, 
or  in  writings  designed  for  the  learned,  to  any  oth- 
er scriptural  authority,  than  that  of  the  Hebrew, 
and  the  Greek.     For  those  indeed,  who  were  una- 
ble to  understand  the  originals,  they  provided  trans- 
lations conducted  to  the  best  of  their  abilities.    And 
since  it  is  infinitely  better  to  read  the  Scriptures  in 
a  translation,  than  not  to  read  them  at  all,  the  le- 
gislature of  different  Protestant  countries  has  wisely 
provided  for  the  reading  of  them  in  Churches,  accor- 
ding to  those  translations,  which  were  most  approv- 
ed.    But  the  high  and  decisive  authority,  belong- 
ing to  the  inspired  originals,  was  never  supposed 
by  any  Protestant,  at  least  not  by  any  real  Pro- 
testant, to  attach  to  a  mere  translation  ;  though  the 
Church  of  Rome  requires  such  authority  for  her 


LECTURE  XIV.  »  41 

oivn  authorised  version.  When  a  Protestant  gov- 
ernment has  selected  a  particular  translation,  and 
appointed  it  to  be  read  in  Churches,  this  selection 
and  appointment  has  implied  only,  that  such  trans- 
lation was  the  best  which  could  then  be  obtained. 
But  it  did  not  imply  perfection,  or  that  no  future 
amendment  could  be  required.  Indeed  we  know 
that  the  English  version,  which  had  been  author- 
ised by  Queen  Elizabeth,  was  exchanged  for  an- 
otJier  version,  authorised  by  James  the  First.  We 
have  therefore  a  precedent  in  our  own  Church,  for 
following  the  advice  of  Archbishop  Newcome,  and 
again  revising  by  authority  our  English  version. 
But  whether  we  revise  it  or  not,  there  is  one  infe- 
rence, which  must  be  drawn  from  the  preceding 
remarks,  namely,  that  Ave  cannot  be  qualified  for 
the  Interpretation  of  the  Bible,  till  we  understand 
the  languages  of  the  Bible. 


LECTURE  XV. 


The  sources  of  biblical  interpretation  having 
been  explained  in  the  preceding  Lecture,  let  us  now 
consider  w\mt  rules  must  be  observed  in  the  investi- 
gation of  words,  in  order  to  make  them  perform  the 
office,  for  which  they  were  intended,  and  become 
signs  to  the  hearer  or  reader  of  what  was  thought 
by  the  speaker  or  writer. 

Whether  we  speak,  or  whether  we  write,  it  is 
in  either  case  our  object  to  be  understood.  Every 
Author  therefore  must  be  supposed  to  employ  such 
words,  for  the  conveyance  of  his  thoughts,  as  he 
believes  will  excite  in  his  readers  the  same  thoughts. 
Otherwise,  he  defeats  his  own  object.  His  words 
will  h^  fallacious  signs  ;  they  will  be  signs  of  one 
thing  to  the  writer,  of  another  thing  to  the  reader ; 
and  whether  they  convey  a  true,  or  convey  a,  false 
proposition,  they  will  not  convey,  what  the  reader 
wants  to  know,  the  proposition  of  the  author. 
Hence  also  he  must  be  supposed  to  use  his  words 
in  the  same  sense,  in  which  they  are  commonly  us- 
ed by  the  persons,  who  speak  the  language,  in 
which  he  writes.     For,  if  he  uses  them  in  any  Qtli- 


LECTURE  XV.  43 

er  sense,  they  will  again  be  signs  of  one  thing  to 
the  writer,  of  another  to  the  reader. 

To  interpret  therefore  a  word  in  any  language, 
(whoever  be  the  author  that  used  it)  we  must  ask 
in  the  first  instance  ;  What  notion  is  (or  was)  af- 
fixed  to  that  word,  by  the  persons  in  general,  who 
speak  (or  spake)  the  language  ?  And  the  answer 
to  this  question  will  constitute  our  first  rule  of  in- 
terpretation. Now  the  question,  when  applied  to 
a  living  language,  is  easily  answered,  because  the 
usage  of  a  living  language  is  known  from  conver- 
sation. But  when  it  is  applied  to  a  dead  language, 
of  which  the  usage  can  be  learnt  only  from  books, 
the  answer  may  involve  very  extensive  inquiries. 
If,  for  instance,  the  question  be  applied  to  a  word 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  answer  will  involve  the 
use  of  those  sources  of  intelligence,  which  were  ex- 
plained in  the  last  Lecture.  In  like  manner,  if  it 
be  applied  to  any  word  in  the  Greek  Tastament. 
the  answer  will  involve  inquiries  into  the  usage  of 
words,  both  among  the  Greeks  in  general,  and 
among  those  in  particular,  who  used  the  peculiar 
dialect  of  Hebreic -Greek, 

But  whatever  be  the  sources,  from  which  we 
derive  our  knowledge  of  words,  whatever  be  our 
means  of  answering  the  question  above-proposed, 
that  answer  will  in  general  determine  our  interpre- 
tation of  words,  as  it  determines  in  general  an  au- 
thor's application  of  them.  The  rules  themselves 
therefore,  which  we  are  now  considering,  may  be 


44  LECTURE  XY. 

explaiued,  without  reference  to  any  particular  lan- 
guage. But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  not  for- 
get, that  they  apply  only  to  the  words  of  an  orighi' 
al.  For  when  we  interpret  a  translation^  the  words, 
which  we  investigate,  are  signs  to  the  reader  of 
what  was  thought  by  the  translator.  They  may, 
or  they  may  not,  be  signs  of  what  was  thought  by 
the  author. 

It  has  been  already  observed,  that  authors  must 
in  general  use  their  words  in  the  sense,  in  which 
they  are  generally  understood :  and  that  hence  is 
derived  our  first  rule  of  interpretation.  But  how, 
it  may  be  asked,  is  the  rule  to  be  applied,  if  a  word 
has  various  senses  ?  Is  not  such  a  word  an  ambig- 
uous sign  ?  And  must  not  the  application  of  the 
rule  be  attended  in  this  case  with  uncertainty  P 
Now  if  a  word  has  various  senses,  it  will  undoubt- 
edly be  a  sign  of  one  thing  in  one  place,  of  anoth- 
er thing  in  another  place.  But  it  is  no  necessary 
consequence,  that  the  word  is  an  amhiguous  sign. 
Its  senses,  however  different,  may  be  distinctly 
marked  by  the  relation  of  that  word  to  other  words, 
with  which  it  is  connected  in  a  sentence.  And  as 
in  cases  where  a  word  has  only  one  sense,  that 
sense  is  determined  by  usage,  in  like  manner,  where 
a  word  has  various  senses,  each  single  sense  will 
be  determined  by  usage.  But  then  the  question 
above-proposed  must  be  restricted  to  the  particular 
case.  And  instead  of  asking  indefinitely,  What 
notion  was  affixed  to  the  word  by  the  persons  in 


LECTURE  XV.  45 

geaeral,  who  spake  the  language,  we  must  ask; 
Whit  nation  did  they  affix  to  it,  in  that  'particular 
connexion. 

Shoulil  a  doubt  however  remain,  where  a  word 
iias  various  senses,  that  doubt  may  be  frequently 
removed  by  the  application  of  another  rule,  which 
is  likewise  founded  on  the  principle,  that  words 
are  signs  to  tlie  reader  of  what  was  thought  by  the 
writer.  As  the  general  meaning  of  words  depends 
on  general  usage,  so  their  particular  application 
may  depend  on  the  particular  situation  of  the  per- 
sons, to  whom  they  were  immediately  addressed. 
We  may  lay  it  down  therefore  as  a  second  rule  of 
interpretation,  that  the  meaning  of  a  word,  used  by 
any  writer,  is  the  meaning,  which  was  affixed  to  it 
by  those,  for  whom  he  immediately  wrote.  For,  if 
a  writer,  addressing  himself  in  the  first  instance  to 
particular  persons  or  communities,  does  not  adapt 
his  expressions  to  the  mode,  in  which  they  are  likely 
to  apply  them,  he  will  fail  to  be  understood  by  the 
very  persons,  for  whose  immediate  benefit  he  wrote. 
When  St.  Paul,  for  instance,  composed  an  Epistle 
to  any  particular  community,  whether  at  Rome,  at 
Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  or  any  other  place,  he  un- 
doubtedly used  such  eocpressions,  as  well  as  such 
arguments,  as  he  knew  would  be  understood  by  that 
community.  And,  as  he  intended  to  be  understood 
by  that  community,  so  and  no  otherwise  did  he  in- 
tend  to  be  understood  by  all  other  readers,  whether 
in  the  first  or  in  the  nineteenth  century.  Now,  in 
7 


46  LECTURE  XV. 

order  to  discover  the  meaning  ascribed  to  St.  PauPs 
expressions  by  any  particular  community  to  which 
he  wrote,  we  must  make  ourselves  acquainted  with 
the  peculiar  situation  of  that  community.  We  must 
understand  the  opinions,  which  they  maintained  on 
the  subjects,  on  which  St.  Paul  addressed  them ; 
or  the  expressions,  which  he  employed  in  the  cor- 
rection or  confutation  of  those  opinions,  may  be  un- 
derstood by  us  in  a  different  manner  from  that,  in 
which  they  understood  his  expressions  ;  and  conse- 
quently in  a  different  manner  from  that,  in  which  St. 
Paul  meant  them  to  be  understood.  For  if  he  had 
not  expressed  himself  so  as  to  be  understood  by 
those,  whose  religious  errors  it  was  his  immediate 
object  to  remove,  his  immediate  object  would  not 
have  been  attained. 

Again,  as  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  the 
original  readers  afford  frequently  a  clue  to  an  au- 
thor's meaning,  so  on  the  other  hand,  his  own  situ- 
ation and  circumstances  are  not  less  necessary  to 
be  taken  into  the  account.  We  may  lay  it  down 
therefore  as  a  third  rule  of  interpretation,  that  the 
words  of  an  author  must  be  so  explained,  as  not  to 
make  them  inconsistent  with  his  known  character, 
his  known  sentiments,  his  known  situation,  and  the 
known  circumstances  of  the  subject,  on  which  lie 
wrote. 

To  judge  of  the  itfi7iY?/of  these  rules,  let  us  take 
a  case  of  interpretation,  which  is  very  common, 
and  where  the  want  of  them  is  especially  felt. 


LECTURE  XV.  ^  47! 

When  a  word  has  various  senses,  it  often  happens, 
that  more  than  one  of  them  will  so  far  suit  the  con- 
text, as  to  afford  some  sort  of  meaning  to  the  pas- 
sage. In  such  a  case,  an  expounder  of  the  Bible 
takes  the  liberty  of  exercising  his  own  discretion  ; 
and  this  discretion  is  commonly  so  exercised,  as  to 
make  the  author  mean  what  the  expounder  wishes 
him  to  have  meant.  Instead  of  considering 
the  situation  of  the  author,  the  expounder  contem- 
plates his  own  situation.  Instead  of  considering 
the  situation  of  those,  whom  the  author  addressed, 
the  expounder  contemplates  those,  whom  he  himself 
is  addressing.  Instead  of  inquiring  into  the  opin- 
ions, which  it  was  the  author's  object  to  confute,  he 
concerns  himself  only  with  those  opinions,  which 
it  is  his  own  object  to  confute.  In  this  manner 
does  he  divert  the  author's  meaning  from  its  original 
purpose ;  and  by  torturing  his  words,  or  rather  the 
words  of  his  translator,  he  contrives  to  extract  from 
them  a  meaning,  which  they  were  not  intended  to 
convey.  But  let  us  ask,  in  the  name  of  common 
sense,  whether  it  be  possible  to  interpret  an  author 
as  he  ought  to  be  interpreted,  without  due  attention 
to  the  preceding  rules.  Suppose,  that  an  ancient 
author  has  written  on  a  point  of  controversy.  Will 
any  man  venture  to  assert,  that  such  an  author  can 
be  understood  by  those,  who  are  ignorant  of  the 
subject  and  circumstances  of  the  controversy? 
Take,  for  instance,  the  controversial  parts  of  St. 
PauVs  writings,  and  see  the  consequence  of  expound- 


4S  LECTUI^E  XT. 

ing  them,  withont  a  knowledge  of  the  subject  and 
circumstances.  What  was  the  cMpJ  controversy, 
which  engaged  the  attention  of  St.  Paul?  It  was 
a  controversy  between  the  Jewish  Converts  and  the 
Heathen  Converts.  The  Jewish  Converts,  attach- 
ed to  their  former  institutions,  contended  that  the 
Law  of  Moses  should  be  united  with  tlie  Faith  of 
Christ.  Had  this  proposition  been  true^  the  Heath- 
en Converts  would  have  been  only  imperfect  Chris- 
tians ;  and,  in  order  to  obtain  the  perfection  requir- 
ed of  them  by  the  Jewish  Converts,  they  must  have 
submitted  to  the  rites  enjoined  by  the  Levitical  Law. 
The  question  therefore  at  issue  between  them,  was 
simply  this  ;  Whether  a  man  could  become  a  good 
Christian,  without  remaining,  or  becoming  a  Jew  ? 
This  question,  which  was  tlien  of  the  liighest  im. 
portance,  St.  Paul  has  discussed,  especially  in  his 
Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  the  Galations,  where 
he  has  decided  the  question  in  the  affirmative.  But 
the  question,  there  decided,  is  very  different  from 
any  question,  wliich  now  agitates  the  religious 
world  :  for  no  man  would  now  suppose,  that  the 
best  Christians  are  they,  who  have  been  Jews. 
Tet  how  seldom  do  we  find  an  interpreter  of  St. 
Paul,  who  keeps  in  view  the  subject  and  circum- 
stances of  that  controversy,  on  which  St.  Paul  him- 
self was  writing?  Men  interpret  his  Epistles,  as 
if  he  were  a  writer  of  the  present  age  :  and  passa- 
ges, relating  solely  to  the  question  at  issue  between 
Jewish  and  Heathen  Converts,  are  so  explained. 


LECTURE  XV.  49 

as  if  the  Apostle  had  been  sitting  in  judgment,  to 
decide  between  Calvin  and  Arminius. 

Here  perhaps  it  will  be  objected,  that  as  the 
Christian  dispensation  was  designed  for  all  men, 
there  is  an  inconsistency  in  supposing,  that  minute 
inquiries  into  the  transactions  of  antiquity  should 
be  necessary,  in  order  to  comprehend  it.  Howev- 
er useful  such  researches  may  be  in  the  study  of  the 
Old  Testament,  yet  to  suppose  that  the  JSTeiv  Tes- 
tament, which  prescribes  not  laws  and  regulations 
for  a  single  nation,  but  dictates  equally  to  all  man- 
kindy  to  suppose  that  such  a  work  should  require 
a  knowledge  of  what  happened  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  and  in  another  quarter  of  the  globe,  be- 
fore it  can  be  understood,  may  appear  incompatible 
with  the  design  of  the  Deity,  in  making  it  the  ve- 
hicle of  his  will.  Now  the  object  of  the  Deity  is 
not  to  be  determined  by  any  preconceived  opinions, 
on  our  part,  concerning  what  he  ought,  or  ought 
not,  to  have  done.  What  he  ought  to  have  done, 
can  be  discovered  by  no  other  means,  than  by  in- 
quiring what  he  has  done.  And,  if  we  find  by  ex- 
ferience,  that  the  understanding  of  the  JSTew,  as 
well  as  of  the  Old  Testament,  requires  extensive 
knowledge,  we  must  argue  accordingly.  Instead 
of  the  gratuitous  supposition,  that  things  ought  to 
have  been  otheriaise,  we  must  conclude  that  things 
ought  to  be,  as  we  find  they  really  are  ;  instead  of 
complaining  about  difficulties,  we  must  endeavour 
to  surmount  them,  by  obtaining   the  knowledge, 


50  LEUTUIiE  XV. 

which  God  has  given  us  the  means  of  obtaining, 
and  which,  from  its  very  necessity,  we  may  con- 
cliulcj  it  is  our  duty  to  obtain. 

It  may  be  further  objectedj  that  the  situation 
of  inspired  writers  is  different  from  that  of  common 
writers.     This  is  certainly  true  ;  it  is   true,  both 
in  respect  to  the  writers  themselves,  and  in  respect 
to  the  confidence,  which  we  may  repose  in  them. 
We  may  be  previously  assured,  when  a  writer  is 
inspired,  that  every  proposition,  which  he  advances, 
is  in  strict  conformity  with  the  truth.     But  we  must 
understand  an  inspired  writer,  as  well  as  a  com- 
mon writer ;  or  we  shall  not  know  what  his  propo- 
sitions   are.     And  the  very  circumstance,  that  his 
propositions  must  be  true,  should  make  us  the  more 
anxious  to  investigate   their  meaning.     But  how 
shall  we  investigate  their  meaning,  unless  we  inter- 
pret the  words  by  the  rules,  which  we  apply  to  oth- 
er writings  ?  Shall  we  imitate  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  rejecting  the  aid  of  human  learning,  resolve  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture  into  the   decrees  of  a 
Council,  on  the  presumption,  that  it  interprets  un- 
der the  infuence  of  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  that 
its  interpretations  are  ihfallible  ?     Or  shall  we  imi- 
tate the  modern  Enthusiast,  who  likewise  rejects 
the  aid  of  human  learning,  who  likeicise  aspires  to 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  and,  acting  on  the  same 
principles  as  the  Church  of  Rome,  determines  with 
equal  ease,  and  with  equal  confidence  in  his  own 
decisions  ?    Or  shall  we  follow  the  example  of  our 


LECTURE  XV.  51 

Meformers,  who,  when  they  had  rejected  Tradi- 
tion as  a  guide  to  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  suppli- 
ed the  flace  of  that  tradition  by  reason  and  learn- 
ing ? 

It  is  true,  that  if  we  interpret  the  Scriptures  by 
the  aid  of  reason  and  learning,  we  must  resign  all 
pretensions  to  that  infallibility,  which  is  claimed  by 
those,  who  aspire  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ; 
whether  that  influence  is  supposed  to  display  itself 
in  the  assurances  of  an  individual,  or  in  the  decrees 
of  a  general  council.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  advantages,  which  compensate  for  every 
defect.  The  man,  who  interprets  Scripture  by  the 
aid  of  reason  and  learning,  without  being  elated  by 
the  supposition  of  a  supernatural  interference  on  his 
account,  will  apply,  no  less  modestly  than  industri- 
ously, the  means  which  Providence  has  placed 
within  his  reach.  While  he  uses  his  honest  en- 
deavours to  discover  tlie  truth,  he  will  pray  to  God 
for  a  blessing  on  those  endeavours :  he  will  pray 
for  that  ordinary  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
without  which  all  our  endeavours  xnnsthe  fruitless  ; 
but  he  will  not  expect  that  extraordinary  assis- 
tance, which  was  granted  of  old,  and  for  higher 
purposes.  He  may  vary  indeed  from  the  inter- 
pretations of  others,  and  sometimes  perhaps  from 
tliose  which  he  himself  had  adopted  at  an  earlier 
period,  when  his  knowledge  of  the  subject  was 
more  confined.  If  the  final  results  of  his  interpre- 
tation should  be  such,  as  in  points  of  doctrine  t« 


52  LECTURE  XV. 

agree  with  the  deductions,  which  he  had  learnt  as 
articles  of  faith,  he  will  rejoice  at  the  coincidence, 
and  be  thankful,  that  his  labours  are  thus  reward- 
ed. But  he  will  feel  no  enmity  to  those,  whose  de- 
ductions are  different ;  he  is  too  well  acquainted 
with  the  numerous  requisites  of  a  good  interpreter, 
to  expect  that  they  should  be  often  united;  and 
knowing,  that  interpreters,  difterently  qualified, 
and  interpreting  on  different  principles,  can  never 
agree  in  their  results,  he  will  have  charity  for  those, 
w^hose  opinions  are  different  from  Ms  own.  He 
will  believe  indeed,  like  other  men,  that  his  own 
opinions  are  right,  and  consequently,  that  what  op- 
poses them  is  wrong.  But  the  pri^iciple,  on  which 
he  argues,  that  his  opinions  are  right,  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  principle,  on  which  either  a  general 
council,  or  an  individual  enthusiast,  would  rest  as 
a  basis  of  the  truth.  He  will  not  pretend,  that  he 
cannot  err;  he  will  not  pretend,  even  that  the 
Church,  of  which  lie  is  a  member,  cannot  err.  And, 
though  in  point  of  fact,  he  believes  that  it  does  not 
err,  yet,  as  he  admits  the  possibility,  he  feels  no  en- 
mity to  those,  who  contend,  that  it  does  err. 
Though  he  believes,  that  he  himself  ]ms  rightly  in- 
terpreted the  Bible,  and  thereon  founds  his  convic- 
tion, that  his  own  Articles  of  Faith  are  legitimate 
deductions  from  the  Bible,  he  is  no  less  desirous  of 
granting  to  others,  than  of  obtaining  for  himself, 
tlie  privilege  of  acting  from  private  conviction. 
The  freedom,  with  which  he  maintains,  that  i]^e  doc- 


LECTURE  XV.  55 

frines    of  his    own  Church    are  in  unison    with 
Scripture,  the  same  freedom  he  allows  to  those, 
who  claim  that  unison  ior  themselves.     He  believes 
indeed,  and  he  asserts,  that  his  own  is  the  true  re- 
ligion.   Yet  he  thinks  it  right,  that  other  men  should 
also  have  the  liberty  of  believing  and  asserting  that 
theirs  is  the  true  religion.     And  he  submits  with 
humility  to  that  Almighty  Being,  who  alone  cannot 
err,  to  determine,  whether  he,  or  they,  be  really  in 
possession  of  what  each  possesses  in  his  oum  belief. 
Such  is  the  interpreter,  who  explains  the  Bible 
by  the  aid  of  reason  and  learning.     Let  us  now  con- 
sider the  interpreter,  who  aspires  to  the  possession 
of  higher  means.     When  a  general  Council,  assem- 
bled by  the  Church  of  Rome,  deliberates  on  points 
of  faith,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  supposed  to  guide  them 
ill  their  inquiries,  and  to  exempt  their  decisions 
from  even  the  possibility  of  a  mistake.     Here  then 
lies  the  grand  distinction  between  the  interpretative 
principle  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  interpre- 
tative principle  of  the  Church  of  England.      The 
Church  of  England,  like  all  other  Christian  com- 
munities without  exception,  asserts,  that  its  doc- 
trines are  in  strict  conformity  with  Scripture.     But 
in  so  doing,  it  merely  asserts  the  fact,  that  it  does 
not  err  from  the  truth  ;    whereas  the   Church  of 
Rome,  beside  the  fact  of  not  erring  from  the  truth, 
claims  also  the  opinion,  that  it  cannot  err  from  the 
truth.     Now  this  claim  of  opinion,  in  addition  to 

the  claim  of  fact,  makes  a  difference  of  infinitely 
8 


54  LECTURE  XV. 

greater  moment,  than  men  in  general  suppose.  It 
has  been  frequently  said,  and  very  lately  repeated, 
that,  as  the  two  Churches  act  alike  in  maintaining, 
each  for  itself,  that  it  does  not  err,  'tis  mere  meta- 
physical subtlety  to  distinguish  between  the  petty 
terms  of  *  does  not,'  and  ^  can  not.'  But  these  terms, 
insignificant  as  they  may  appear,  denote  nothing 
less,  than  two  distinct  principles  of  action,  and 
principles  so  distinct,  that  the  one  leads  to  charity 
and  toleration,  the  other  to  intolerance  and  persecu- 
tion. On  the  former  principle,  which  is  maintain- 
ed by  the  church  of  England,  though  we  believe  that 
we  are  right,  we  admit,  that  we  are  possibly  wrong; 
though  we  believe  that  others  are  wrong,  we  admit 
that  they  slyg  possibly  right ;  and  hence  we  are  dis- 
posed to  tolerate  their  opinions.  But  on  the  latter 
principle,  which  is  maintained  by  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  very  possibility  of  being  right  is  denied 
to  those,  who  dissent  from  its  doctrines.  Now,  as 
soon  as  men  have  persuaded  themselves,  that  in 
points  of  doctrine  they  cannot  err,  they  will  think 
it  an  imperious  duty  to  prevent  the  growth  of  all 
other  oinnions  on  a  subject  so  important  as  religion. 
Should  argument  therefore  fail,  the  importance  of 
the  end  will  be  supposed  to  justify  the  worst  of 
means.  But  the  intolerance,  thus  produced  by  an 
imaginary  exemption  from  error,  is  frir  from  being 
confined  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  same  intol- 
erance is  produced  in  every  man,  who  imagines, 
that  he  interprets  the  Scriptures  under  the  especial 


LECTURE  XV.  55 

guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  makes  no  differ- 
ence, in  this  respect,  whether  such  especial  guid- 
ance is  supposed  to  be  vouchsafed  to  a  general 
coiuicilf  or  to  an  individual  in  his  private  apart- 
ments. The  result  in  either  case  is  the  same.  In 
either  case,  the  persons  who  believe  themselves  so 
gifted,  will  conclude,  that  they  cannot  err.  In  ei- 
ther case,  they  will  deem  it  impious  to  tolerate  what 
the  Spirit,  as  they  imagine,  has  condemned.  And 
hence  we  may  justly  infer,  that  the  same  inquisito- 
rial power,  which  has  been  exercised  by  the  Church 
of  Rome,  would  be  exercised  by  others^  who  set  up 
similar  pretensions,  if  the  means  of  employing  that 
power  were  once  at  their  command. 

Have  we  not  (hen  sufficient  ground  for  resist- 
ing pretensions,  no  less  dangerous  to  the  communi- 
ty,  than  fallacious  in  themselves  ?  Can  we  want 
further  arguments  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
by  reason  and  learning?  Perhaps  indeed  I  ought 
not  in  this  place  to  use  arguments  at  all  in  their  fa- 
vour. It  may  appear  superfluous  to  plead  for  rea- 
son and  learning  in  an  University  like  this,  where 
mathematical  acumen  and  classical  literature  go 
hand  in  hand.  But  it  is  the  misfortune  of  many 
well-intentioned  young  men,  to  have  been  seduced 
into  a  belief,  that  the  acuteness  of  reasoning,  which 
is  wanted  in  mathematics,  and  the  learning,  which 
they  employ  in  the  study  of  the  classics,  may  be 
laid  aside  as  useless,  nay,  even  as  an  incumbrance, 
when  they  transfer  their  inquiries  to  religion.    The 


5G  LECTURE  XT. 

words  of  man's  wisdom  are  then  exchanged  for  a 
supposed  demonstration  of  the  Sjnrit.  But  let  us 
not  deceive  ourselves  on  so  momentous  a  subject; 
Because  an  inspired  Apostle  has  declared,  that  his 
wisdom  was  derived  from  the  suggestions  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  let  us  not  imagine,  that  our  wisdom 
will  be  dignified  by  the  same  supernatural  aid.  Be- 
cause an  inspired  Apostle  has  declared,  that  his 
wisdom  was  not  the  wisdom  of  inarif  but  the  power 
of  God,  let  us  not  imagine,  that  the  same  divine  Il- 
lumination, the  same  intellectual  light,  in  which 
St.  Paul  composed  his  Epistles,  will  be  infused  in- 
to a  modern  expounder  of  them.  Nor,  because  St. 
Paul  has  declared,  that  the  wisdom  of  this  world 
is  foolishness  with  God,  let  us  conclude,  that  the 
duty  of  a  Christian  requires  him  to  discard  from  the 
study  of  the  Bible  the  assistance  of  human  learning. 
The  wisdom  of  this  world,  which  St.  Paul  advised 
the  Corinthians  to  reject,  is  very  different  from  that, 
which  is  meant  by  human  learning  :  indeed  so  dif- 
ferent, that  they,  who  are  least  acquainted  with  the 
latter,  are  often  best  acquainted  with  the  former. 
Let  us  remember  also,  that  they  who  depreciate  hu- 
man learning,  as  the  means  of  interpreting  the  Scrip- 
tures, depreciate  what  was  the  pillar  of  the  Refor- 
mation :  that  they  act  contrary,  both  to  the  princi- 
ples, and  to  the  practice  of  our  Reformers  :  that 
they  would  involve  us  in  mental  darkness,  and  thus 
firing  us  back  to  Popery  again. 

.Lastlyj  let  us  inquire,  whether  the  rules  of  in- 


LECTURE  XV.  57 

tcrpretation,  wliicli  apply  to  human  authors,  are 
still  applicable,  when  Scripture  is  referred  to  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  its  author.  Now  in  whatever  man- 
ner we  suppose  that  inspiration  was  communicated, 
and  whatever  degree  of  agency  Ave  ascribe  to  the 
writers  themselves,  we  shall  find,  that  the  words  of 
Scripture  must  be  still  interpreted  by  the  same 
rules  as  those,  which  apply  to  the  words  of  merely 
human  authors.  If  the  Sacred  Writers  were  so  in- 
spired, that,  while  their  knowledge  was  suggested 
to  them,  the  mode  of  committing  that  knowledge  to 
writing  was  left  to  their  own  discretion,  the  words 
which  they  employed  for  that  purpose,  must  evi- 
dently be  interpreted  as  their  words,  and  conse- 
quently by  the  rules  above  described.  Nor  will 
the  conclusion  be  different,  if  the  words  were  in- 
spired. For  if  the  words  themselves  were  dictated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  choice  of  those  words  must 
have  been  determined  by  the  same  rules,  as  if  they 
had  been  chosen  by  the  Sacred  Writers.  The 
choice  of  them  must  hsL\e  equally  depended  on  their 
common  usage  in  the  intercourse  between  man  and 
man.  If  they  had  mot  been  so  chosen,  they  would 
not  have  been  understood  by  man.  They  would 
not  have  conveyed  to  the  reader  what  was  thought 
by  the  author,  and  the  object  of  revelation  would 
not  have  been  attained. 


LECTURE  XVI. 


The  rules  of  interpretation,  explained  in  the  last 
Lecture,  were  founded  on  the  usage  of  words,  ei- 
ther general,  or  particular.  Now  the  usage  of 
words  in  any  language  means  the  use  of  them  as 
determined  by  the  practice  of  those,  who  spake  and 
wrote  the  language.  Lexicographers  therefore, 
when  they  give  the  senses  of  words,  accompany 
those  senses  with  passages  from  authors,  who  have 
used  them  in  those  senses  :  and  the  passages,  thus 
quoted,  are  considered  as  authorities  or  vouchers, 
that  such  senses  belong  to  those  words.  When  a 
Lexicon  however  relates  to  a  dead  language,  the 
compiler  of  it  is  seldom  in  possession  of  authors  suf- 
ficiently numerous  and  multifarious,  to  teach  him 
the  usage  of  that  language  in  lis  full  extent.  Ex- 
amples of  the  same  word,  occurring  only  in  a  feui 
instances,  are  common  in  most  of  the  dead  lan- 
guages, and  in  none  so  much  as  in  the  Hebrew.  But 
the  less  frequently  a  word  is  usedy  the  fewer  are 
the  opportunities  afforded  by  the  language  itself, 
ef  learning  what  the  usage  of  it  is.  Nor  are  the  ex- 
amples uncommon  of  words  occurring  only  once 
among  the  authors  extant  in  a  dead  language.    And 


><^ 


LECTURE  XVI.  59 

lu  such  cases^  the  language  itself  affords  us  no  oth- 
er opportunity  of  learning  its  usage,  than  one  sin- 
gle comparison  of  a  word  with  others  in  connexion 
with  it.  And  though  the  majority  of  words  in  a 
dead  language  may  often  occur,  yet  whenever  the 
number  of  their  senses  bears  a  considerable  pro^ 
portion  to  the  whole  number  of  examples^  the  au- 
thorities for  each  single  sense  will  be  proportional- 
ly reduced. 

To  aid  therefore  our  imperfect  means  of  dis- 
covering by  observation  the  usage  of  words,  we 
must  extend  our  inquiry  beyond  the  mere  relation  of 
words  to  those  who  use  them.  We  must  consider 
the  relation,  which  words,  as  signs,  bear  immedi- 
ately to  the  notions,  of  which  they  are  signs  :  and 
we  must  further  inquire  into  the  ground  of  that  re- 
lation. For,  though  the  meaning  of  words  is  no 
other  than  that,  in  which  they  have  been  actually 
usedy  we  must  not  conclude,  that  usage  is  altogeth- 
er fortuitous.  Though  the  connexion  between 
words  and  their  notions  is  conventional,  that  con- 
vention may  have  been  regulated  by  determinate 
laws.  Indeed  the  connexion  between  words  and 
their  notions  may  have  originated  in  various  caus- 
es. But  unless  the  causes  are  understood,  we  can- 
not judge  of  the  effects.  Let  us  inquire  therefore 
into  the  origin  of  that  connexion,  which  subsists  be- 
tween words,  as  signs,  and  the  notions  of  which 
they  are  signs. 

A  word  may  be  considered  at  present;,  either  as 


.M. 


60  LECTURE  XVI. 

something  seen,  or  as  something  heard  :    either  as 
a  written  word,  or  as  a  spoken  word  :    either  as  a 
visible,  or  as  an  audible  sign,  of  its  notion.     But  in 
the  infancy  of  language,  it  was  only  an  audible,  not 
a  visible  sign.     A  word  was  then  a  mere  sound,  or 
utterance  of  the  voice,  conveying  to  the  hearer  some 
notion  entertained  by  the  speaker.     And,  though 
the  invention  of  writing  was  introduced  in  so  early 
an  age,  that  all  remembrance  of  that  invention  is 
lost  in  the  darkness  of  remote  antiquity,  a  consider- 
able  period  must  have  elapsed  before  spoken  words 
could  have  acquired  a  representation   in   written 
words.     Indeed,  before  any  attempt  was  made  to 
write  by  the  use  of  letters,  it  is  probable  that  in  ev- 
ery country  some  kind  of  hieroglyphic  or  picture- 
writing  was  employed.     But  representations  of  this 
kind  had  no  connexion  whatever  with  the  use  of 
letters :  they  could  not  even  have  led  to  the  inven- 
tion of  letters.     They  were  representations  not  of 
the  words,  but  of  the  objects,  to  which  the  words 
referred.     They  were  easy  and  obvious  represen- 
tations, when  applied  to  external  objects  ;  nor  was 
the  transition  difllcult,  when  representations  were 
wanted  for  things  abstracted  from  the  observation 
of  the  senses.     Some  resemblance  to  a  visible  ob- 
ject suggested  a  correspondent  mark  ;  as,  for  in- 
stance, when  a  circle,  which  is  a  line  without  end, 
was  used  in  hieroglyphics,  to  denote  sl  period  with- 
out end.     But,  as  soon  as  men  began  to  write  with 
those  characters,  which  are  called  letters,  they  no 


LECTURE  XVI.  fll 

longer  represented  the  objects,  to  which  the  words 
had  reference.  The  thing  then  represented  was 
the  sound,  or  utterance  of  the  voice,  which  denoted 
the  object.  Letters  are  elements,  which  are  simply 
expressive  of  sound  ;  and  tliey  were  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  different  forms  assumed  by  the  mouth 
in  the  utterance  of  each  single  sound.  In  the  most 
ancient  languages,  each  letter  was  a  distinct  sylla- 
ble, or  distinct  single  sound  ;  and  hence  they  were 
easily  combined  into  forms  expressive  of  combined 
sounds.  In  this  manner  did  the  sjjoken  word  ac- 
quire a  representation  in  the  icritten  word ;  and 
thenceforward  they  were  so  identified,  that  the  word 
became  no  less  a  determinate  sign  to  the  reader  of 
what  was  thought  by  the  writer,  than  it  was  pre- 
viously to  the  hearer  of  what  was  thought  by  the 
speaker. 

In  the  interpretation  therefore  of  words  it  is  im- 
material at  present,  whether  we  consider  them  as 
visible,  or  consider  them  as  audible  signs.  But 
there  is  another  relation  between  words  and  their 
notions,  which  has  very  material  influence  on  the 
usage  of  them  in  every  language.  And  in  order  to 
understand  this  relation,  we  must  consider  in  what 
manner  it  is  probable,  that  language  ifscZf  was  orig- 
inally formed.  The  first  notions,  which  men  must 
have  wanted  to  convey  to  others  by  the  means  of 
words,  were  notions  excited  by  objects  of  the  sen- 
ses :  and,  when  words  had  been  provided  for  these 

notions,  the  next  effort  was  the  invention  of  word« 
9 


6^  LECTURE  XVL 

for  notions  acquired  by  reflection*  But  here  sl  diffi- 
culty occurred,  which  did  not  occur  in  the  former 
case.  The  words,  which  were  first  employed  in 
the  infancy  of  language,  to  denote  external  objects^ 
were  probably,  more  or  less,  an  echo  to  the  sense. 
The  particular  tones,  which  were  uttered  by  difFer-^ 
ent  animalsy  or  were  heard  in  the  operations  of  ii2r_ 
animate  nature,  suggested  probably  the  sounds  or 
words,  by  which  the  first  attempts  were  made  to 
express  the  correspondent  objects.  And,  though 
an  object,  which  itself  was  destitute  of  sound,  was 
more  easily  represented  to  the  eye,  than  to  the  ear, 
more  easily  provided  with  a  picture,  than  with 
a  word^  yet  an  object,  even  by  its  external /c»r?w,  or 
an  action,  by  the  mode  of  its  operation,  might  have 
occasioned  in  the  person,  who  was  forming  a  sound 
for  it,  such  a  formation  of  the  mouth,  as  produced  a 
correspondent  utterance.  In  short,  external  ob- 
jects, as  well  as  external  actions,  might,  in  various 
ways,  which  it  is  here  unnecessary  to  detail,  have 
suggested  the  sounds  or  words,  which  were  origin- 
ally used  to  denote  them.  But  when  words  were 
wanted  for  things,  which  could  be  neither  heard, 
nor  seen,  nor  perceived  by  any  other  of  the  senses, 
there  was  no  clue,  which  could  lead  directly  to  a 
sound  corresponding  with  the  thing  to  be  represent, 
ed.  All  notions,  acquired  by  reflection,  are  ex- 
cluded by  their  very  origin,  from  any  immediate  re- 
semblance with  either  visible  or  audible  signs. 
They  may  operate  indeed  mediately,  if  they  operate 


LECTURE  XVI.  63 

ou  the  passions  :  for  in  that  case  an  effect  may  be 
produced,  either  in  the  voice,  or  in  the  gesture, 
which  may  give  rise  to  a  sound  corresponding  with 
that  effect,  and  therefore  indirectly  with  the  cause, 
which  produced  that  effect.  But  if  the  notion  was 
so  abstracted  from  all  sensible  effect,  as  to  produce 
no  external  mark,  which  might  have  suggested  a 
correspondent  sound,  a  sound,  or  word,  must  have 
been  provided  for  it  in  one  of  these  two  ways. 
Either  an  arbitrary  sound  must  have  been  invent- 
ed, without  any  attempt  at  similitude  between  the 
sound  and  the  thing  to  be  represented  by  it ;  or 
some  similitude  must  have  been  sought  between  the 
abstract  notion,  for  which  a  word  was  wanted,  and 
some  other  notion,  already  provided  with  a  word. 
The  latter  mode  was  not  only  more  easy  and  ob- 
vious ;  but  also  more  consonant  with  an  early  state 
of  civilization,  when  the  imagination  is  always 
more  employed  in  finding  resemblances,  than  the 
judgment  in  discovering  differences.  In  such  cases 
therefore,  it  would  frequently,  and  perhaps  com- 
monlij  happen,  that  words  already  provided  for  one 
purpose,  would,  for  want  of  neio  words,  be  applied 
to  another  purpose,  in  consequence  of  some  resem- 
blance, whether  real  or  imaginary,  between  the 
primary  and  the  secondary  purpose. 

In  this  representation  of  the  origin  and  forma- 
tion of  language,  we  see  th&  foundation  of  those  dis- 
tinctions in  the  senses  of  words,  which  are  observ- 
ed in  all  languages,  and  which  are  expressed  by 


64  LEC'J'URE  XVi. 

the  terms,  proper  and  improper  sense — literal  and 
jigurative  sense — grammatical  and  tropical  sense. 
When  a  word  is  used  in  that  sense,  which  was 
jirst  annexed  to  it,  the  sense,  in  which  it  is  thus 
used  is  its  oivn,  or  its  jJ^'oper  sense.  But  when  a 
word  is  wanted  for  a  sense,  which  has  had  no  word 
exclusively  attached  to  it,  and  it  is  necessary  there- 
fore to  employ  some  word,  which  has  already  a  con- 
nexion of  its  own,  the  word,  so  used  in  a  sense, 
which  does  not  properly  helong  to  it,  is  said  to  be 
used  in  an  improper  sense.  The  literal  sense  of 
a  word  corresponds  so  far  to  its  proper  sense,  that 
the  term  literal,  by  referring  to  the  elemeiitSy  of 
which  a  word  is  composed,  implies  that  the  word  is 
used  in  its  original  simplicity,  or  its  original  sense* 
But  as  the  origioal  sense  of  a  word  is  frequently 
lost,  especially  in  its  transition  from  one  language 
to  another,  some  derivative  sense,  occupying  the 
place  of  the  original  sense,  becomes,  from  that  time, 
the  literal  sense.  Now  the  literal  sense  is  no  oth- 
er than  the  grammatical  sense,  the  term  grammat- 
ical  having  the  same  reference  to  the  Gi-eek  lan- 
guage, as  the  term  literal  to  the  Latin.  They 
equally  refer  to  the  elements  of  a  word.  For  a  sim- 
ilar reason,  the  tropical  sense  is  no  other  than  the 
figurative  sense.  As  we  say  in  language  derived 
from  the  Greek,  that  a  trope  is  used,  when  a  word 
is  turned  from  its  literal  or  grammatical  sense,  so 
we  say  in  language  derived  from  the  Latin,  that  a 
figure  is    then  used,  because  in  sugh  cases  i\i^ 


LECTURE  XVI.  65 

meaning  of  the  word  assumes  a  new  form.  The 
same  opposition  therefore,  which  is  expressed  by 
the  terms  literal  sense  and  figurative  sense,  is  ex- 
pressed also  by  the  terms  grammatical  seyise  and 
tropical  sense.  But  the  opposition  expressed  by 
the  terms  proper  sense  and  improper  sense  is  of  a 
different  description.  When  a  word  is  diverted 
from  its  proper  sense,  the  senses,  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plied, are,  all  of  them,  denominated  improper  sens- 
es, of  whatever  number  or  kind  those  senses  may 
be.  But  though  a  figurative  sense  is  always  an 
improper  sense,  as  being  equally  a  departure  from 
the  first  sense,  an  improper  sense  is  not  always  a 
figurative  sense.  To  make  a  sense  figurative  in 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  terra,  there  must  not 
only  be  a  departure  from  the  first  sense,  as  in  the 
case  of  an  improper  sense,  but  there  must  at  the 
same  time  be  excited  something  like  an  image  in 
the  mind. 

All  languages  are  more  or  less  figurative  :  but 
they  are  the  most  so  in  their  most  early  state.  Be- 
fore language  is  provided  with  a  stock  of  words, 
sufficient  in  their  literal  sense  to  express  what  is 
wanted,  men  are  under  the  necessity  of  extending 
the  use  of   their  words  beyond  the  literal  sense. 

But  the  application,  when  once  begun,  is  not  lim- 
ited by  the  bounds  prescribed  by  necessity.  The 
imagination,  always  occupied  with  resemblances, 
which  are  the  foundation  of  figures,  disposes  men  to 
seek  for  figurative  terms,  where  they  might  have 


66  LECTURE  XVI 

expressed  themselves  in  literal  terms.  Figurative 
lauguage  presents  a  kind  of  picture  to  the  mind, 
and  thus  delights  while  it  instructs  ;  whence  the 
use  of  it,  though  more  necessary,  when  a  language 
is  poor  and  uncultivated,  is  never  laid  aside,  espe- 
cially in  the  writings  of  orators  and  poets.  The 
Hebrew  language  is  Jiighly  figurative,  as  well  in 
the  prophetical  as  in  the  poetical  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  speeches  and  discourses  of  our 
Saviour  are  not  less  figurative  :  and  numerous  mis- 
takes have  been  made  by  a  literal  application  of 
what  \\?LS  figuratively  meant.  When  our  Saviour 
said  to  the  Jews,  "'Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three 
days  I  will  raise  it  up,'^  the  Jews  understood  the 
word  '  temple '  in  its  literal  sense,  and  asked  him 
whether  he  could  raise  again  in  three  days  what 
had  taken  six  and  forty  years  to  build.  They  did 
not  perceive,  that  his  language  was  figurative,  and 
that  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  hody. 

But  among  all  the  mistakes,  which  liave  been 
made  in  the  iuterp rotation  of  that  figurative  lan- 
guage, so  frequently  employed  by  our  Saviour, 
there  is  none,  which  has  led  to  such  important  con- 
sequences, and  has  created  such  dissensions  in  the 
Christian  world,  as  that  which  relates  to  the  body 
of  Christ,  at  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Sacrament. 
When  our  Saviour  at  the  Last  Supper  took  bread, 
and  blessed  it  and  brake  it,  he  gave  it  to  his  disci- 
ples, saying.  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  lody.  In  like 
manner,  when  he  had  taken  the  cup,  and  given 


I 


LECTURE  XVI.  67 

thanks,  he  said  to  his  disciples,  Drink  ye  all  of  it, 
for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament.  In  the 
same  figurative  language  he  liad  spoken  on  a  for- 
mer occasion,  when  he  said.  He  that  ealcth  my 
flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and 
I  in  him.  And  then  comparing  his  body  with 
bread,  he  added,  'This  is  that  bread,  which  came 
down  from  heaven.'  The  Jews  indeed,  as 
well  on  this  occasion,  as  when  he  spake  of  the  /ew- 
ple  of  his  body,  understood  him  literally,  and  asked, 
*How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?' 
though  our  Saviour  himself,  when  he  said  of  his 
body,  that  it  was  the  bread  which  came  down, 
from  heaven,  plainly  indicated,  that  he  was  only 
comparing  his  body  with  bread.  The  Church  of 
Rome  has  followed  the  example  of  the  Jews,  and 
has  likeivise  ascribed  a  literal  meaning  to  words, 
which  were  purely  figurative.  But  the  difficulty 
which  pressed  upon  the  Jews,  in  regard  to  literally 
eating  the  body  of  Christ,  is  not  felt  by  the  Church 
of  Home.  The  mistake  of  the  Jews  consisted  in 
supposing,  that  our  Saviour  literally  offered  them  his 
hodij  to  be  eaten ;  whereas  he  literally  offered  hie 
body  as  a  sacrifice,  and  what  he  offered  in  remem- 
brance of  that  sacrifice  was  literally  bread  and 
wine.  But  the  Church  of  Rome,  regarding  the 
ceremony  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  an  actual  rep- 
res  riitation  of  that  sacrifice,  not  as  a  commemora- 
tion  of  it,  supposes,  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  is  literally  presented  to  the  view  of  the  com- 


<JS  LECTURE  XVr. 

municaiit.  And  believing,  that  Clirist  himself,  by 
the  consecration  of  the  bread  and  wine  at  the  Last 
Supper,  had  literally  converted  them  into  his  owa 
body  and  blood,  before  he  said  to  his  disciples, 
'  This  is  my  body,^  and  '  this  is  my  blood,'  they 
conclude,  that  the  miraculous  conversion,  thus  as- 
cribed to  Christ  himself,  (a  conversion,  which,  had 
it  been  necessary,  lay  undoubtedly  witliin  the  reach 
of  almighty  power,)  is  equally  performed  by  the  hu- 
man power  of  an  officiating  priest.  But  the  Church 
of  England,  with  due  attention  to  that  figurative 
style,  so  frequently  employed  by  our  Saviour  on 
other  occasions,  has  interpreted  his  words  on  that 
solemn  occasion  by  the  rules  of  analogy,  and  by  the 
dictates  of  common  sense.  We  eat  the  bread  in  re- 
membrance,  that  Christ  died  for  us ;  we  feed  on 
him  only  in  our  hearts  by  faith  with  thanksgiving. 
We  believe,  that  the  blood  of  Christ  was  shed  for 
us,  and  will  preserve  us  to  everlasting  life.  But 
the  cup,  which  we  drink,  we  drink  only  in  remem- 
brance that  Christ's  blood  was  shed  for  us.  The 
same  interpretation  of  our  Saviour's  words  was 
adopted  by  the  Reformers  in  general,  with  the  ex- 
ception only  of  Luther.  He  firmly  indeed  resisted 
the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  or  an  actual 
change  in  tlie  substance  of  the  elements,  as  main- 
tained by  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  so  far  took  the 
words  of  Christ  in  a  figurative  sense,  as  not  to  be- 
lieve that  tlie  bread  and  wine,  even  after  the  conse- 
<i'nfion,  meant  the  same  things  as  the   body   and 


LECTURE  XVI.  6^ 

blood  of  Christ.  He  believed  that  the  bread  and 
wine  still  retaiaed  their  proper  qualities.  But  he 
was  perplexed  by  this  expression,  This  is  my  bo- 
dy ;  and  though  conference  after  conference  was 
holdeu  on  the  subject,  he  could  never  be  persuaded 
to  construe  that  expression  consistently  with  the 
figurative  language  which  is  used  throughout ;  and 
he  persevered  to  the  last  in  so  strict  an  interpreta- 
tion of  that  expression,  as  if  it  meant.  This  is  real- 
hj  and  literaJly  my  body.  Having  rejected  howev- 
er the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  or  an  actual 
change  in  the  elements,  he  endeavoured  to  remove 
the  difficulty,  in  which  he  had  unnecessarily  involv- 
ed himself,  by  supposing  that,  after  the  consecra- 
tion, the  body  of  Christ  was  united  with  the  bread  ; 
and  this  union  (not  conversion)  of  substance  was 
called  Consuhstantiation,  But  there  was  a  difficul- 
ty still  remaining,  which  occasioned  a  controversy 
of  long  duration  after  Luther's  death.  The  Hi- 
vines  of  Switzerland  objected  to  the  Lutherans,  that 
our  Saviour  could  not  be  every  where  corjmreally 
present,  which  the  doctrine  of  Consubstautiatiou 
implied ;  while  the  Lutherans,  on  their  parts,  en- 
deavoured to  remove  that  objection,  by  accounting 
for  the  hypostatic  union  on  the  ground  of  what  they 
technically  termed  ^  Communicatio  idiomatum,^  or 
the  Commuuication  of  properties.  And  since 
Christ,  as  God,  must  be  omnipresent  in  respect  to 
his  divine  nature,  they  hence  inferred,  that  as  this 

divine  nature  had  been  united  to  his  human  nature^ 
10 


70  LECTUUE  XVI. 

there  existed  a  comniunicatioii  of  properties  from 
the  former  to  the  latter,  which  made  him  corpore- 
ally present,  where  he  was  spiritually  present.  The 
argument  however  did  not  satisfy  their  opponents, 
who  thought  it  wiser  to  prevent  the  difficulty,  by 
an  uniformly  consistent  interpretation  of  figurative 
language. 

The  importance  therefore  of  a  due  distinction 
between  tlie  literal  and  figurative  use  of  words  in 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  can  require  no  fur- 
ther illustration.  But  in  all  cases,  the  literal  mean* 
ing  of  a  word  must  be  the  first  object  of  our  inqui- 
ry, because  its  figurative  meaning  is  ou\j  slvl  appli- 
ed meaning  ;  and,  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  the 
application,  we  must  understand  the  nature  of  the 
thing  applied.  If  a  word  has  only  one  sense,  that 
sense  is  of  course  considered  as  its  literal  sense. 
But  if  it  has  various  senses,  it  then  becomes  a  mat- 
ter of  inquiry,  and  sometimes  of  difficult  inquiry, 
in  what  manner  those  various  senses  ^hall  be  ar- 
ranged. Now  as  the  words,  which  relate  to  the 
compound  notions  of  reflexion,  are  used  for  the  most 
part  witii  the  greatest  latitude,  an  examination  of 
the  manner,  in  which  the  various  senses  of  such 
words  may  have  been  successively  formed,  will 
most  easily  suggest  the  general  principle,  on  which 
the  senses  of  words  should  be  arranged.  When 
such  a  compound  notion  is  altered  only  by  the  sub- 
traction of  one  of  its  constituent  notions,  or  by  the 
addition  of  one  other  simple  notion,  the  second  state 


LECTURE  XVI.  71 

of  that  compound  notion  will  so  nearly  resemble  its 
first  state,  that  the  difference  will  be  hardly  percepti. 
ble ;  and  hence  the  same  word,  which  expressed  it  in 
its  first  state,  will  follow  it  to  its  second  state.  By  a 
similar  addition  or  subtraction,  this  compound  no- 
tion enters  on  a  third  state,  differing  more  from  the 
first,  but  still  resembling  the  second.  In  like  man- 
ner it  goes  on  to  ?i  fourth  and  ^  fifth  state,  each  re- 
sembling the  state  immediately  preceding  it,  but  dif- 
lering  more  and  more  from  the  first  state,  till  at 
length  the  word  acquires  a  meaning,  which  has  lit- 
tle or  no  resemblance  with  the  primary  meaning. 
Examples  of  this  description  are  numerous  in  eve- 
ry language  :  and  there  is  no  department  of  inter- 
pretation, which  affords  such  scope  for  the  skill  of 
the  artist,  as  the  discovery  and  the  due  arrangement 
of  these  several  senses.  If  we  put  them  together  in 
any  other  order,  than  that,  in  which  they  were  sue- 
sessively  formed^  we  shall  never  comprehend  hoio 
the  same  word  could  have  acquired  such  a  variety 
of  senses  ;  and  consequently  we  shall  be  exposed 
to  perpetual  doubt,  whether  a  word,  which  admits 
of  one  sense,  is  capable  of  being  applied  in  another. 
To  facilitate  the  analysis,  we  should  endeavour  in 
the  first  place  to  discover,  ichich  among  the  various 
senses  could  most  easily  have  given  rise  to  all  the 
rest :  for  this  must  have  been  the  primary  sense. 
That  which  most  resembles  it,  must  be  the  second 
in  order;  and  so  onward.  In  this  manner  we  may 
form  a  genealogy  of  senses,  in  which  the  resem- 


^^%M. 


ft  LECTURE  XVI. 

blance  between  each  parent  and  its  immediate  oif- 
spring  is  distinctly  visible,  tliough  all  resemblance 
be  lost  between  the  ancestor  and  the  latest  de- 
scendant. No  Lexicographer  has  paid  such  atten- 
tion to  this  genealogjf  of  senses,  as  Schleusner  in 
Ills  Lexicon  to  the  Greek  Testament,  a  Lexicon, 
which  should  be  in  the  possession  of  every  student 
in  Theology. 

Nor  is  it  enough,  that  an  interpreter  of  Scripture 
understands  this  arrangement  of  senses,  in  regard 
only  to  the  words  of  the  original.  He  must  be 
equally  attentive  to  the  language,  which  he  employs, 
as  the  medium  of  interpretation.  For  it  frequently 
happens,  that  one  language  authorises  a ^^g-itrftfii^e 
use  of  words,  which  is  not  applicable  to  the  words, 
that  literally  correspond  to  them  in  another  lan- 
guage. If  then  the  latter  rire  substituted  for  the 
former,  where  the  former  are  used  in  their  figura- 
tive sense,  we  shall  have  an  interpretation,  it  is 
true,  but  such  an  interpretation,  as  conveys  to  the 
reader  what  was  thought  by  the  interpreter,  not 
what  was  thought  by  the  author.  Here  then  we 
again  perceive  the  superiority  of  the  learned  above 
the  unlearned  interpreter.  The  former  extracts 
the  senses,  which  attach  to  the  words,  and  thus 
produces  an  J^^position.  The  latter,  intent  only  on 
imposing  his  own  meaning  on  the  words,  produces 
what  may  be  termed  rather  an  Imposition.  Above 
all  thin2;s.  let  us  beware  of  the  fulse  conclusion, 
that  we  have  discovered  the  meaning  of  a  word,  if 


m 


LECTURE  XVI.  rs 

it  does  but  make  a  passage  intelligihie.  For  if  the 
meaning  of  a  word  had  nothing  else  to  determine  it, 
than  the  mere  circumstance  of  its  making  the  pas- 
sage intelligible^  the  sense  of  Scripture  would  be 
involved  in  the  greatest  ambiguity.  It  often  hap- 
pens, that  various  senses  may  be  ascribed  to  a 
word,  and  yet  that  in  each  case  the  sentence  will 
be  intelligible.  It  is  possible  even,  that  in  eacU 
case  it  will  convey  a  truth.  But,  if  it  conveys  not 
that  truth,  which  was  intended  by  the  author,  it 
conveys  not  the  truth;  with  which  we  are  then  con- 
cerned. 

After  what  has  been  already  said  on  the  gener- 
al nature  of  literal  and  figurative  language,  it  can- 
not  be  necessary  to  examine  in  detail  the  several 
kinds  of  figures,  which  have  been  enumerated  by 
grammarians  and  rhetoricians.  Indeed  the  figures 
of  diction,  as  they  are  called,  relate  merely  to  the 
addition  or  subtraction  of  letters  or  syllables,  and 
have  no  concern  whatever  with  the  ijiterpretationof 
words.  Nor  have  we,  in  this  respect,  any  concern 
with  the  figures  of  construction  ,•  for  they  relate  to 
grammatical  arrangement,  and  not  to  the  meaning 
of  words.  In  short,  the  figure,  with  which  we  are 
chiefly  concerned,  is  Metaphor :  for  it  is  a  figure, 
which  is  more  frequently  employed,  than  all  other 
figures  of  rhetoric  put  together.  Now,  as  similitude  is 
the  foundation  of  figurative  language  in  general,  so 
is  it  especially  of  Metaphor.  Indeed  a  Metaphor  is 
itself  Si  Simile,  though  not  in  the  form  of  a  Simile, 


r*  LECTURE  XVI. 

For  instance,  if  we  say  of  a  distinguished  Divine, 
that  he  supports  the  established  religion,  as  a  pillar 
supports  the  incumbent  edifice,  we  make  use  of  a 
Simile,  drawn  out  in  the,  form  of  a  Simile.  But  if  we 
contract  the  Simile  into  a  single  position,  and  give 
a  metapJiorical  sense  to  the  word  Pillar,  which  be- 
fore was  used  literally,  we  may  then  say  of  such  a 
person,  that  he  is  a  pillar  of  the  Church^  On  the 
other  hand,  as  any  one  who  was  secretly  at  work 
for  its  destruetion,  might  be  compared  with  a  man, 
who  was  undermining  an  edifice,  we  should  say  ia 
metaphorical  language,  that  such  a  person  wa§ 
undermining  the  Church.  But  if  the  mine  should 
at  length  exjplode,  and  the  Church  should /aW,  the 
defender  of  that  Church  might  exclaim,  again  io 
Metaphor,  and  again  in  Truth, 

Impavidum  ferient  ruince.  Jlu-raJT^ 


'^I^^KKr 


"^"      y^mm^ 


LECTURE  XYII. 


The  last  Lecture  having  concluded  with  an  ex- 
planation of  Metaphor^  our  present  inquiry  must 
be  directed  to  Mlegorij,  But  before  we  attempt 
the  interpretation  of  the  latter,  we  should  clearly 
understand  its  relation  to  the  former.  Now  a  JMet' 
aphor,  as  the  origin  of  the  term  imports,  is  a  kind 
of  transfer,  which  takes  place  whenever  a  word, 
belonging  2? ro^er/^  to  one  subject^  is  transferred  to 
another  subject,  to  which  it  does  not  properly  be- 
long. If  we  apply  the  word  ^pillar'  to  an  edifice, 
we  apply  it  where  it  properly  belongs  :  but  if  we 
transfer  it  to  a  person  we  apply  it  where  it  does  not 
properly  belong.  The  metaphorical  sense  there- 
fore, like  the  figurative  sense  in  general,  belongs 
to  the  class  of  improper  senses  ;  and  it  possesses 
in  an  eminent  manner  that  character  of  the  figura- 
tive sense,  which  consists  in  presenting  an  image  to 
the  mind.  When  a  Statesman  is  called  a  pillar  of 
the  State,  or  a  Churchman  a  pillar  of  the  Churcli^ 
there  is  presented  an  image,  which  exhibits  more 
clearly,  as  well  as  more  forcibly',  what  is  meant  tr- 


76  LECTURE  XVII. 

be  expressed,  than  could  have  been  expressed  by  a 
mere  literal  term.  But  metaphorical  interpreta- 
tion always  remains  an  interpretation  of  words; 
whereas  allegorical  interpretation,  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently find,  is  an  interpretation,  not  of  wo^'ds,  but  of 
tilings. 

An  Allegory  indeed  has  been  sometimes  con- 
sidered as  only  a  lengthened  Metaphor ;  at  other 
times  as  a  continuation  of  Metaphors.  But  we 
shall  best  understand,  both  the  nature  of  Allegory 
itself,  and  the  character  of  allegorical  interpreta» 
tion,  by  attending  to  the  origin  of  the  term,  which 
denotes  it.  Now  the  term  ^  allegory,'  according  to 
its  original  and  proper  meaning,  denotes — a  repre- 
sentation of  one  thing,  which  is  intended  to  excite 
the  representation  of  another  thing.  Every  Alle- 
gory therefore  must  be  subjected  to  a  two-fold  ex- 
amination :  we  must  first  examine  the  immediate 
representation,  and  then  consider,  what  other  rep- 
resentation it  was  intended  to  excite.  Now  in 
most  Allegories  the  immediate  representation  is 
made  in  the  form  of  a  narrative :  and  since  it  is 
the  object  of  an  x'^llegory  to  convey  a  moral,  not  an 
historic  truth,  the  narrative  itself  is  commonly 
fictitious.  The  immedi-jte  representation  is  of  no 
further  value,  than  as  it  leads  to  the  ultimate  rep- 
resentation. It  is  the  ajjplication,  or  the  moral,  of 
the  Allegory,  which  constitutes  its  ivorth. 

Since  then  an  Allegory  comprehends  two  dis- 
tinct   representations,    the   interpretation    of   an 


LECTtJRE  xvir.  rr 

Allegory  must  coinpreliend  two  cUstinet  operations. 
The  first  of  them  relates  to  the  im/necUate  repre- 
sentation :  the  second  to  the  ultimate  represen- 
tation. The  immediate  representation  is  under- 
stood from  the  words  of  the  Allegory  :  the  ultimate 
representation  depends  on  the  immediate  represen- 
tation applied  to  its  jproper  end.  In  the  interpre- 
tation therefore  of  the  former,  we  are  concerned 
with  an  interpretation  of  words  ;  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  latter,  we  are  concerned  with  the  things 
signified  by  the  words.  Now,  whenever  we 
speak  of  allegorical  interpretation,  we  have  al- 
ways in  view  the  ultimate  representation,  and 
consequently  are  then  concerned  with  an  inter- 
pretation of  things.  The  interpretation  of  the 
words,  which  attaches  only  to  the  immediate  rep- 
resentation,  or  the  plain  narrative  itself,  is  com- 
monly called  the  grammatical,  or  the  literal  inter- 
pretation ;  though  we  should  speak  mi>re  correctly, 
if  we  called  it  the  verbal  interpretation,  since  even 
in  the  plainest  narratives,  even  in  narratives  not 
designed  for  moral  application,  the  use  of  words  is 
never  restricted  to  their  mere  literal  senses.  Cus- 
tom however  having  sanctioned  the  application  of 
the  term  literal,  instead  of  the  term  verbal  mi&Y])VQ- 
tation,  to  mark  the  opposition  to  allegorical  inter- 
pretation,  we  must  understand  it  accordingly.  But 
whatever  be  the  term,  whether  verbal  or  literal, 
which  we  employ  to  express  the  interpretation  of 
the  ivords^  we  must  never  forget,  that  the  allegorical 

a 


78  J.ECTURE  XVIl. 

interpretation  is  the  interpretation  oHht  tJiings  ^  of 
the  things  signified  by  the  words,  not  of  the  words 
themselves.  If  we  lose  sight  of  this  distinction,  the 
subject  of  allegorical  interpretation  will  immedi- 
ately be  involved  in  obscurity.  Indeed  the  nume- 
rous difficulties,  which  have  usually  attended  the 
treatment  of  it,  have  been  chiefly  owing  to  this 
cause.  An  interpretation  of  things  has  been  treat- 
ed, as  if  it  were  an  interpretation  of  words  ;  and 
this  heterogeneous  mixture  of  subject  and  predi- 
cate has  occasioned  equal  perplexity,  in  the  argu- 
ments, and  in  the  conclusions. 

That  the  subject  of  allegorical  interpretation, 
which  is  of  liigh  importance  to  the  Sacred  Writings, 
may  be  better  understood,  let  us  apply  the  princi- 
ple, which  has  been  here  explained,  to  a  few  ex- 
amples of  Scripture.  And,  as  every  parable  is  a 
kind  of  allegory,  let  us  consider  in  the  first  place, 
that  example,  which  is  esjpecialhj  clear  and  correct, 
the  parable  of  the  sower.  '^  A  sower  went  out  to 
^^sow  his  seed.  And,  as  he  sowed,  some  fell  by 
*■'  the  way-side  ;  and  it  was  trodden  down,  and  the 
*^  fowls  of  the  air  devoured  it.  And  some  fell 
*^ upon  a  rock:  and  as  soon  as  it  sprang  up,  it 
"  withered  away,  because  it  lacked  moisture.  And 
"  some  fell  among  tiiorns  :  and  the  thorns  sprang 
"up  witli  it,  and  choked  it.  And  other  fell  on 
*^good  ground:  and  sprang  up,  and  l)are  fruit  an 
*^  hundred-fold.''  Here  we  have  a  flain  narrative, 
a  statement  of  a  few   simple  and  intelligible  facts, 


LECTURE  XVII.  7^ 

such  probably  as  had  fallen  within  the  observation 
of  the  persons,  to  whom  our  Saviour  addressed 
himself.  When  he  had  finished  the  narrative,  or 
the  immediate  representation  of  the  allegory,  he 
then  gave  the  explanation^  or  the  ultimate  repre- 
sentation of  it.  That  is,  he  gave  the  allegorical 
interpretation  of  it.  And  that  this  allegorical  in- 
terpretation was  an  interpretation,  not  of  the  ivords^ 
but  of  the  things  signified  by  the  words,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  explanation  itself.  '^  The  seed  is 
"the  Word  of  God.  Those  by  the  way-side  are 
'Uhey  that  hear:  then  cometh  the  devil,  and  taketh 
"  away  the  Word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they 
'^should  believe  and  be  saved.  They  on  the  rock 
'^are  they,  which,  when  they  hear,  receive  the 
'^  Word  with  joy  :  and  these  have  no  root,  which 
'^for  awhile  believe,  and  in  time  of  temptation 
"fall  away.  And  that,  which  fell  among  thorns, 
"  are  they,  which,  when  they  have  heard,  go  forth, 
'*  and  are  choked  with  cares,  and  riches,  antl  pleas- 
"  ures  of  this  life,  and  bring  no  fruit  to  perfection. 
"  But  that  on  the  good  ground  are  they,  which  in 
"  an  honest  and  good  heart  having  heard  the  Word, 
*^keep  it,  and  bring  forth  fruit  with  patience." 
Here  then  we  have  an  evident  explanation,  not 
of  the  words  employed  in  the  narrative,  but  of  the 
tilings  signified  by  them.  It  was  the  seed  itself, 
with  which  the  Word  of  God  was  compared.  As 
the  seed  was  choked,  which  fell  among  thorns,  so 
the  Word  of  God  is  choked  by  the  pleasures  of  the 


no  LECTURE  XVII. 

vrorld :  and,  as  that  Tiliicli  fell  on  good  ground 
produced  an  hundred-fold,  so  the  "Word  of  God 
produces  in  those,  who  are  prepared  to  receive  it. 
In  short,  an  Allegory  with  its  application  consti- 
tutes a  kind  of  Simile,  in  both  parts  of  which  the 
words  themselves  are  construed,  as  oi>  other  occa- 
sions, either  literally  or  figuratively,  according  to 
the  respective  use  of  them:  and  then  we  institute 
the  comparison  between  the  things  signified  in  the 
former  part  v.ith  the  things  signified  in  the  latter 
part. 

Let  us  now  take,  as  an  example  of  Allegory 
from  the  Old  Testament,  that  impressive  and  pa- 
thetic Allegory,  addressed  by  Nathan  to  David. 
^*  There  were  two  men  in  one  city,  the  one  rich, 
"  and  the  other  poor.  The  rich  man  had  exceed- 
^'^ing  many  flocks  and  herds.  But  the  poor  man 
•^  had  nothing,  save  one  little  ewe  lamb,  which  he 
'■  had  bought  and  nourished  up ;  and  it  grew  to- 
^^gether  with  him  and  with  his  children ;  it  did  eat 
'^^  of  his  own  meat,  and  drank  of  his  own  cup,  and 
^*  lay  in  his  bosom,  and  was  unto  him  as  a  daugh- 
^^  ter.  And  there  came  a  traveller  unto  the  rich 
^•man,  and  he  spared  to  take  of  his  own  flock, 
*^  and  of  his  own  herd,  to  dress  for  the  way-faring 
*'  man,  that  was  come  unto  him  ;  but  took  the  poor 
"  man's  lamb,  and  dressed  it  for  the  man,  that  was 
vcome  to  him."  When  Nathan  had  finished  this 
narrative,  which  he  had  addressed  to  David,  as 
9.11  allegory,  David,  not    immediately    perceiving 


LECTURE  XVII.  8i 

the  intended  application,  replied,  "  As  the  Lord 
^^  liveth,  the  man,  that  has  done  this  thing,  shall 
*^ surely  die:  and  he  shall  restore  the  lamb  four- 
*^fold,  because  he  did  this  thing,  and  because  he 
^^  had  no  pity.''  In  application  then  of  the  narrative 
to  the  intended  purpose,  replied  Nathan  to  David, 
^^Thou  art  the  man.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God 
'^  of  Israel ;  I  anointed  thee  king  over  Israel,  and 
"I  delivered  thee  out  of  the  hand  of  Saul,  and  I 
^^  gave  thee  thy  master's  house,  and  thy  master's 
*^  wives  into  thy  bosom,  and  gave  thee  the  house  of 
^'  Israel  and  of  Judah ;  and  if  that  had  been  too 
^^  little,  I  would  moreover  liave  given  unto  .thee 
*^such  and  such  things.  Wherefore  liast  thou 
^^  despised  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  to  do 
^^  evil  in  his  sight?  Thou  hast  killed  Uriah  the 
^'  Hittite  with  the  sword,  and  hast  taken  his  wife 
''  to  be  thy  wife,  and  hast  slain  him  with  the  sword 
^'  of  the  children  of  Ammon." 

In  the  preceding  examples,  the  allegorical  nar- 
ratives were  accompanied  with  their  explanations  ; 
that  is,  both  parts  of  the  Simile  were  introduced. 
But  allegorical  narratives  are  more  frequently  left 
to  explain  themselves,  especially  when  the  resem- 
blance between  the  immediate  and  the  ultimate 
representation  is  sufficiently  apparent,  to  make  an 
explanation  unnecessary.  Of  this  kind  we  cannot 
have  a  more  striking  example,  than  one,  which 
has  been  frequently  quoted,  namely,  that  beautiful 
allegory    in   the  eightieth   Psalnio     "Thou   hasf 


82  LECTURE  XXlh 

^'  brought  a  vine  out  of  Egypt :  thou  liast  cast  out 
*^  the  heathen,  and  planted  it.  Tliou  preparetlst 
'^room  for  it,  and  didst  cause  it  to  take  deep 
"root,  and  it  filled  the  land.  The  hills  were 
'^covered  with  the  shadow  of  it,  and  the  boughs 
''^  thereof  were  like  the  goodly  cedars.  She  sent 
'•  out  her  boughs  unto  the  sea,  and  her  branches 
'•^unto  the  river.  Why  hast  thou  broken  down 
'^  her  hedges,  so  that  they,  which  pass  by  the  way, 
''do  pluck  her?  The  boar  out  of  the  wood  doth 
''waste  it,  and  the  wild  beast  of  the  field  doth 
"devour  it.  Heturn,  we  beseech  thee,  O  God  of 
"  hosts,  look  down  from  heaven,  and  behold,  and 
"visit  this  vine.''  In  this  Allegory  was  finely 
depictured  the  then-unhappy  state  of  the  Jews 
contrasted  Avith  their  former  prosperity :  and  its 
application  was  sufficiently  obvious,  without  any 
formal  explanation ;  for  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord 
of  Jiosis.  was  the  Jiouse  of  Israel.  It  is  indeed  an 
essential  requisite  in  every  Allegory,  which  is 
left  to  explain  itself  that  the  application  be  easy 
and  obvious.  The  subject,  designed  to  be  sug- 
gested must  be  one  that  is  familiar  to  the  reader  ; 
and  the  several  circumstances  of  the  immediate 
representation,  must  have  a  manifest  correspond- 
ence with  those  of  the  ultimate  representation. 
The  immediate  representation  must  be  consistent 
also  in  its  several  parts.  Whatever  object  be 
selected  for  the  comparison,  that  object  must  be 
kept  constantly  in  view ;  and  we  must  be  careful 


LECTURE  XVII.  aJ 

tbat  nothing  be  affirmed  of  it,  which  does  not  prop- 
erly belong  to  it.  Otherwise  the  Allegory  itself 
will  displease  by  its  incongruity,  and  lose  its  effect 
in  the  application. 

After  these  examples  from  Scripture,  let  me  be 
allowed  to  quote  an  instance  of  Allegory  from  a 
jirofaiie  author,  especially  as  it  has  been  made  a 
subject  of  examination  by  Quintillian.  It  is  the 
well-known  passage  in  Horace^, 

O  Navis,  referent  in  mare  te  novi 
Fluctu3  ?     O  quid  agis?     Foi  tiler  occupa 
Portum. 

On  this  passage  Quintillian  observes,  *•'  Navim  pro 
*^  republica,  fluctuum  tempestates  pro  bellis  civili- 
"  bus,  portum  pro  pace  atquc  coucordia  dicit."  But, 
though  the  passage  may  be  explained  by  the  sub- 
stitutions here  made,  it  is  not  that  the  words,  used 
by  Horace,  are  synonymous  with  the  words,  em- 
ployed by  Quintillian  for  the  explanation  ;  but  be- 
cause the  things  signijied  by  the  former  may  be 
compared  with  the  things  signified  by  the  latter. 
It  is  not  that  JSTavis  can  signify  a  republic,  or  that 
Fluctus  can  signify  civil  wars,  or  that  Portus  can 
signify  peace.  But  a  ship  tossed  by  the  waV'Cs  may 
be  compared  with  a  nation  agitated  by  civil  wars, 
as  a  ship,  lying  safely  in  harbour,  may  be  agaiw 
compared  with  a  nation  enjoying  the  blessings  of 
peace.  Here  then  we  have  another  proof,  that  alle- 
gorical interpretation  is  an  interpretation,  not  of 
words,  but  of  things. 


34  LECTURE  XVII. 

From  tlie  preceding  explaDations  we  are  ena- 
bled also  to  reconcile  two  seemingly  contradictory 
assertions  on  this  subject,  for  which  it  would  be  oth- 
erwise difficult  to  account.  It  is  well  known,  that 
many  of  the  ancient  Fathers  were  so  fond  of  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  as  to  employ  it,  not  only  in 
the  interpretation  of  allegory,  but  also  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  history.  In  this  respect  has  Jerom 
complained  especially  of  Origen,  ^*  quod  ita  alle- 
gorizet,  ut  histoHce  aiiferat  veritatem.^^  On  the 
other  hand,  Ernesti  in  his  Opuscula  philologica  et 
critica,  has  a  Dissertation  entitled,  J)e  Origene  in- 
terpretationis  libroriim  sacrorinn  grammaticse  auc- 
tore.  If  Origen  then,  according  to  Ernesti,  was  so 
distinguished  for  his  grammatical  interpretation, 
with  what  propriety  could  Jerom  complain,  that  he 
was  so  attached  to  allegorical  interpretation  ?  Is  not 
grammatical  or  literal  interpretation  always  consid- 
ered as  opposite  to  allegorical  interpretation  ?  How 
then,  it  may  be  asked,  could  the  interpretations  of 
Origen  be  considered  as  grammatical  by  one  writer, 
and  as  allegorical  by  another  P  Now  this  seeming 
mystery  will  be  explained  at  once,  when  we  con- 
sider, that  as  Allegoi'y  comprehends  two  distinct 
representations,  the  interpretation  of  it  comprehends 
two  distinct  operations.  The  one  relates  to  its  im- 
mediate, the  other  to  its  ultimate  representation. 
The  one  is  an  interpretation  of  icords  ;  the  other 
of  the  things  signified  by  the  words.  H^he  former 
is  the  literal  or  grammatical ;  the  latter  the  allegori 


LECTURE  XVII.  85 

cal  interpretation.  Here  then  we  see  very  clearly, 
that  both  literal  and  allegorical  interpretation, 
though  opposed  to  each  otlier,  not  only  may  exist 
together,  but  actually  do  exist  together  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  every  Allegory.  And  they  exist  to- 
gether without  any  inconsistency,  because  they  re- 
late to  two  distinct  operations.  The  same  reason- 
ing applies  also  to  any  example  of  real  history,  if 
that  example  be  treated  as  allegory,  and  adapted  to 
some  purpose  ieside  the  narrative,  as  allegory  is  in 
its  ultimate  representation.  For  in  such  a  case  we 
have  an  historical  narrative  subjected  to  a  two-fold 
interpretation  ;  of  which  the  first  is  the  literal,  the 
second  the  allegorical.  And,  as  these  two  kinds  of 
interpretation  may  exist  together  without  contradic- 
tion, we  can  easily  comprehend,  that  the  same  inter- 
preter may  display  grammatical  accuracy  in  the 
former,  and  yet  fall  into  extravagancy  in  the  em- 
ployment of  the  latter.  This  was  really  the  case 
with  Origen. 

From  what  has  been  already  stated  it  appears, 
that  the  use  of  allegorical  interpretation  is  not  con- 
fined to  mere  allegory,  or  fictitious  narratives,  but 
is  extended  also  to  history,  or  real  narratives.  And 
in  this  case  the  grammatical  meaning  of  a  passage 
is  called  its  historical  meaning,  in  contradistinction 
4o  its  allegorical  meaning.  Now  there  are  two  dif- 
ferent modes,  in  which  Scripture-history  has  been 
thus  allegorized.     According  to  one  mode,  facts 

aad  circumstances,  especially  those  recorded  in  the 
IS 


86  LECTURE  XVII. 

Old  Testament,  have  been  applied  to  other  facts 
and  circumstances,  of  which  they  have  been  de- 
scribed as  representative.  According  to  the  other 
mode,  those  facts  and  circumstances  have  been  de- 
scribed as  mere  emblems.  The,  former  models  war- 
ranted by  the  practice  of  the  Sacred  Writers  them- 
selves ;  for  when  facts  and  circumstances  are  so  ap- 
plied, they  are  applied  as  types  of  those  things,  to 
whieh  the  application  is  made.  But  the  latter 
mode  of  allegorical  interpretation  has  no  such  au- 
thority in  its  favour,  though  attempts  have  been 
made  to  procure  such  authority.  For  the  same 
things  are  then  described,  not  as  types,  or  as  real 
facts,  but  as  mere  ideal  representations,  like  the  im- 
mediate representation  in  allegory.  By  this  mode 
therefore  is  history  not  ouly  treated  as  allegory,  but 
converted  into  allegory  :  or,  in  other  words,  histo- 
ry is  thus  converted  into  fahle.  Now  it  is  by  arti- 
fices, like  these,  that  the  adversaries  of  Christiani- 
ty have  endeavoured  to  undermine  the  truth  of 
Scripture- Historij :  and  we  have  lately  had  a  not- 
able example  in  a  distinguished  writer  of  this  coun- 
try. Nor  are  these  allegorical  interpreters  content- 
ed always  with  their  oimi  preservations  ;  for  some 
of  them  have  attempted  to  enlist  even  St.  Paul  in- 
to the  service  of  infidelity.  They  have  endeavour- 
ed to  prove,  that  the  Mosaic  history  is  mere  allegO' 
ry,  by  appealing  to  that  passage  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  where  St.  Paul,  in  reference  to  the 
history  of  the  two  sons  of  Abraham,  says,  ^  Which 


LECTURE  XVII.  87 

things  are  an  Allegory.'  Since  then  an  Allegory 
is  a  picture  of  the  imagination,  or  n  fictitious  narra- 
tive, they  conclude  that  St.  Paul  himself  has  war- 
ranted, by  his  own  declaration,  that  mode  of  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  which  they  themselves  ap. 
ply  to  the  subversion  of  Scripture-history. 

If  the  pretext,  which  infidelity  thus  derives  from 
the  words  of  our  authorized  versioiiy  had  been  af* 
forded  also  by  the  words  of  the  original,  we  might 
have  found  it  difficult  to  reply.  But  as  soon  as  we 
have  recourse  to  the  words  of  the  original,  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  appeal  is  visible  at  once.  If  St.  Paul 
himself  \i3it\  been  quoted,  instead  of  the  translators 
of  St.  Paul,  it  would  have  instantly  appeared,  that 
the  Apostle  did  not  apply,  as  is  supposed  by  En- 
glish readers,  the  title  of  allegory  to  any  portion  of 
the  Mosaic  history.  The  word  'aaauvo/i/^  has  never 
been  used  by  St.  Paul  in  any  one  instance  through- 
out all  his  Epistles  r  nor  indeed  does  it  occur  any 
where  in  the  Greek  Testament,  nor  even  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  At  the  place 
in  question,  St.  Paul  did  not  pronounce  the  histo- 
ry itself  an  allegory  :  he  declared  only  that  it  was 
allegorized.  His  own  words  are  'at(v«  io-nv  uxx„. 
yopsviistx,  which  have  a  very  different  meaning  from 
the  interpretation  of  them  in  our  authorized  version. 
It  is  one  thing  to  say,  that  a  history  is  allegorized  : 
it  is  another  thing  to  say,  that  it  is  allegory  itself 
If  we  only  allegorize  an  historical  narrative,  we  do 
not  of  necessity  convert  it  into   allegory.     And 


88  LECTURE  XVn. 

tliough  allegorical  interpretatioiij  when  applied  to 
liistory,  may  be  applied,  either  so  as  to  preserve^ 
or  so  as  to  destroy  its  historical  verity,  yet  when 
we  use  the  verb  '  allegorize/  as  *SY.  Taul  has  used 
it,  the  allegorical  interpretation  is  manifestly  of  the 
former  kind.  Had  he  meant  that  the  history  was 
an  allegory,  he  need  not  have  allegorized  it :  an  at- 
tempt to  make  a  thing  what  it  is  already  would  in- 
deed be  no  less  absurh,  tlian  superfluous.  In  short, 
when  St.  Paul  allegorized  the  history  of  the  two 
sons  of  Abraham,  and  compared  them  with  the  two 
covenants,  he  did  nothing  more  than  represent  the 
iirst  as  types,  the  latter  as  their  antitypes.  Though 
he  treated  that  portion  of  the  Mosaic  history  in  the 
same  manner  as  we  treat  an  Allegory,  he  did  not 
thereby  convert  it  into  Allegory.  Though  he  insti- 
tuted the  same  comparison  which  we  institute  in  an 
Allegory  between  its  immediate  and  its  ultimate  re- 
presentation, yet  the  subjects  of  St.  PaiiVs  com- 
parison did  not  thereby  acquire  the  same  cliaracter 
with  the  subjects  of  an  Jlllegory.  In  the  interpre- 
tation therefore  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  essentially 
necessary,  that  we  observe  the  exact  boundaries  be- 
tween the  notion  of  an  Allegory  and  the  notion  of  a 
Type.  And  it  is  the  more  necessary,  as  some  of 
our  own  commentators,  among  others  even  Mact- 
night,  misled  by  the  use  of  the  term  •'  Allegory'  in 
our  authorized  version,  have  considered  it  as  sy- 
nonymous with  Type.  An  Allegory,  as  already  ob- 
served, is  a  fictitious  narrative  :  a  Type  is   some- 


LECTURE  XVII.  B9 

thing  real.  An  Allegory  is  a  picture  of  the  imagin- 
ation ;  a  Type  is  an  historic  fact.  It  is  true,  th^t 
typical  interpretation  may  in  one  sense  be  consid- 
ered as  a  species  of  allegorical  interpretation  ;  that 
they  are  so  far  alike,  as  being  equally  an  interpre- 
tation of  things  ;  that  they  are  equally  founded  on 
resemblance  ;  that  the  type  corresponds  to  its  anti- 
type,  as  the  immediate  representation  in  an  Allego- 
ry corresponds  to  its  ultimate  representation.  Yet 
the  quality  of  the  things  compared,  as  well  as  the 
purpoH  of  the  comparison,  is  very  different  in  the 
two  cases.  When,  for  instance,  Joshua,  leading 
the  Israelites  into  the  Holy  Land,  is  described  as  a 
type  of  our  Saviour  leading  his  disciples  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  or  when  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Passover  is  described  as  a  type  of  the  sacrifice  of 
our  Saviour  on  the  cross  ;  the  subjects  of  reference 
have  nothing  similar  to  the  subjects  of  an  Allegory, 
though  the  comparison  between  them  is  the  same. 
And  though  a  type,  in  reference  to  its  antitype,  is 
called  only  a  shadow,  while  the  latter  is  called  the 
substance,  yet  the  use  of  these  terms  does  not  im- 
ply, that  the  former  has  less  historical  verity,  than 
the  latter. 

St.  Paul  therefore  has  afforded,  neither  by  his 
language,  nor  by  his  arguments,  the  slightest  pre- 
text for  that  wildness  of  allegorical  interpretation, 
which  has  been  applied  to  the  subversion  of  histor- 
ical truth.  The  practice  of  converting  into  allego- 
ry the  narratives  of  ancient  authors  was  derived 


90  LECTURE  XVII. 

from  a  very  difterent  source.  It  originated  among 
the  Greeks;  and  long  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 
The  work,  on  which  this  species  of  allegorical  in- 
terpretation was  first  employed,  was  the  Iliad  of 
Homer :  and  a  collection  of  allegorical  expositions 
is  still  extant,  which  has  been  published  under  the 
title,  Heraclidis  Megorice  Ilomericce.  It  is  true, 
that  the  actions  ascribed  to  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  real  history  ;  that  they  can- 
not be  considered  as  a  journal  of  events,  which  actu- 
ally  happened  before  the  walls  of  Troy.  But  the 
author  certainly  meant,  that  they  should  assume  the 
character  of  real  events.  For  unless  the  descend- 
ants of  those  heroes  could  have  siipjjosed  at  least 
that  they  were  reading  the  actions  of  their  ances- 
tors, the  Iliad  would  never  have  become  a  national 
poem.  There  was  nothing  tlierefore  in  the  charac- 
ter of  those  actions,  at  all  resembling  allegorical  re- 
presentation, a  representation,  which  not  only  pro^ 
fesses  to  be  a  picture  of  the  imagination,  but  a  pic- 
ture introduced  merely  for  the  sake  of  another  pic- 
ture, that  resembles  it.  Nor  were  the  actions,  as- 
cribed even  to  the  Deities  of  the  Iliad,  any  other 
than  such,  as  accorded  with  the  superstition  of  the 
age,  and  to  the  original  readers  exceeded  not  the 
bounds  of  credihilitij.  But  when  the  savage  man- 
ners of  the  ancient  heroes  became  offensive  to  the 
polished  Greeks  of  later  ages,  and  the  mythology 
of  Homer  became  disgusting  to  those,  who  had  been 
educated  in  the  schools  of  Aristotle  and  Plafo*  the 


LECTURE  XVII.  91 

commentators  on  Homer  had  recourse  to  the  expe- 
dient of  allegorical  interpretation.  Unable  to  de- 
fend him  by  a  literal  exposition,  yet  unwilling  to 
abandon  a  national  author,  whom  the  Greeks  had 
ever  holden  in  the  highest  veneration,  his  philoso- 
phic interpreters  drew  the  veil  of  allegory  over  the 
actions  of  the  Iliad,  and  represented  them  thus  dis- 
guised, as  the  depositories  of  sublime  and  mysterious 
truths. 

The  example  of  the  Greeks  became  infectious 
to  the  Jews,  who,  after  the  age  of  Alexander,  were 
established  among  them  in  numerous  colonies,  es- 
pecially in  Egypt  under  the  government  of  the 
Ptolemies.  Hence  they  learnt,  not  only  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Greeks,  but  their  habits  of  tJiinJcing 
and  reasoning.  And,  since  Judaism  appeared  fool- 
ishness to  the  Greeks,  as  did  afterwards  Christian- 
ity, the  Jews  themselves  had  the  weakness  and  the 
impiety,  to  treat  the  writings  of  Moses  as  the  Greeks 
had  treated  the  writings  of  Homer.  Thus  they  sac- 
rificed the  historic  truths  recorded  by  the  divine 
Lawgiver,  and  converted  miracles  into  allegories, 
that  Moses  might  appear  in  the  garb  of  a  Platonic 
philosopher.  Philo  of  Alexandria,  who  wrote  in 
the  early  part  of  the  first  century,  has  exhibited  in 
numerous  instances  the  Jewish  mode  of  allegorizins; 
the  books  of  Moses.  Educated  at  Alexandria  in 
the  Platonic  philosophy,  he  made  this  philosophy  a 
rule  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  If  then  the 
grammatical  or  historical  meaning  of  a  passage  ac- 


g2  LECTURE  XVII. 

corded  not  with  the  rule^,  a  mystical  meaning;  was 
sought  to  supply  its  place ;  and  facts,  which  had 
been  recorded  by  Moses  as  supernatural  events, 
were  transformed  into  ideal  representations,  sup- 
posed to  have  no  other  object,  than  to  convey  some 
religious  mystery,  or  moral  truth.  The  same  mode 
of  allegorical  interpretation,  as  Philo  himself  re- 
lates, was  employed  by  the  Therapeutse  and  the 
Essenes  :  and  from  the  Jews  it  was  transferred  to 
the  Christiau  Fathers. 


LECTURE  XYIII. 


When  the  early  Fathers  had  adopted  the 
mode  of  allegorical  interpretation,  which  was  de- 
scribed at  the  end  of  the  last  Lecture,  they  appli- 
ed it  to  the  defence  of  the  Sacred  Writings  against 
the  objections  of  the  Greek  philosopher.  But 
however  icell-intentioned  that  application  might 
have  been,  it  was  ill  calculated  to  serve  the  cause 
of  Christianity.  For,  instead  of  confuting  their  ad- 
versaries by  an  argumentura  ad  judicium,  they  only 
silenced  their  adversaries  by  a  retort  of  the  argu- 
mentum  ad  hominem.  Thus,  when  Celsus,  the 
Epicurean  philosopher,  had  objected  to  the  Mosaic 
account  of  the  Creation,  the  Temptation,  and  the 
Fall  of  Man,  the  answer  of  Origen,  in  his  treatise 
against  Celsus,  was  better  adapted  to  a  defeat  of 
his  immediate  opponent,  than  to  a  permanent  de- 
ftMice  of  the  Bible.  It  was  urged  by  Origen,  that 
the  narratives,  to  which  Celsus  had  objected, 
should  be  explained  allegorically :  and  he  argued, 

that  Celsus  could  not  consistently  reject  this  mode 
18 


94  LECTURE  XVIII. 

of  interpretatioiij  because  it  was  employed  by  the 
Greek  philosophers  themselves.  But,  though 
truth  is  frequently  conveyed  in  the  form  of  an  Al- 
legory, the  truth,  which  is  thus  conveyed,  is  morale 
not  historic  truth.  The  narrative,  which  imparts 
the  Moral,  is.  itself  fictitious.  If  therefore  a  nar- 
rative, professedly  historical,  be  treated  as  a  nar- 
rative purely  allegorical,  the  history  itself  is  there- 
by ahandoned.  That  some  moral  inference  may 
slill  be  drawn  from  it,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
Moral  inferences  are  drawn  from  professed  fahles, 
which  are  themselves  a  kind  of  allegory.  But  their 
value  is  confined  entirely  to  the  application  of 
them;  whereas  historic  facts  are  recorded  for  their 
own  sakes,  and  independently  of  any  moral  use, 
which  may  afterwards  be  made  of  them.  If  we 
ascribe  then  the  character  of  allegory  to  an  histor- 
ical narrative,  we  defeat  the  very  purpose,  for 
which  the  facts,  contained  in  it,  were  recorded. 
Besides,  if  this  treatment  of  an  historical  narrative 
is  admissible  in  one  case,  it  is  admissible  in  others: 
and  thus  all  history,  both  sacred  and  profane,  may 
be  diverted  from  its  original  intent.  For  nothing 
is  more  easy,  than  such  a  mode  of  treatment.  We 
have  only  to  look  for  some  sort  of  resemblance 
between  the  fact,  to  which  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion shall  be  applied,  and  some  other  fact,  (whether 
near  or  remote,  is  of  little  consequence.)  and  we 
obtain  at  once,  upon  these  principles,  the  immedi- 
ate and  Vi'i  ultimate  representation  of  au  Allegory ; 


LECTURE  Xnil.  95 

we.  have  at  once  an  allegorical,  instead  of  an  his- 
torical narrative.  In  this  manner  was  the  history 
of  our  Saviour  and  the  twelve  Apostles  converted 
a  few  years  ago  by  a  French  writer  into  a  mere  Al- 
legory :  and  persons,  whose  existence  is  establish- 
ed by  the  strongest  of  all  possible  evidence,  were 
transformed  into  ideal  representations  of  the  Sun 
and  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac.  By  a  similar 
process  were  the  miracles  of  our  Saviour  converted 
into  Allegories,  in  the  former  part  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, by  a  member  of  this  very  University.  Indeed 
this  writer  imagined,  that  he  had  not  only  the  ex- 
ample of  the  Fathers,  but  the  example  also  of  St. 
Faiil  in  his  favour.  And  since,  according  to  the 
words  of  our  authorised  version,  St.  Paul  had 
made  an  Allegory  of  one  fact,  he  thought  himself 
at  liberty  to  make  an  Allegory  of  another.  That 
St.  Paul  did  not  apply  the  title  of  Allegory  to  any 
historic  fact,  that  he  afforded  not  even  a  pretext 
for  this  mode  of  allegorical  interpretation,  was  ful- 
ly proved  in  the  last  Lecture.  But  it  wouid  be 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  vindicate  the  conduct 
of  the  Fathers.  T/ieir  mode  of  allegorizing  Scrip- 
lure  was  of  a  very  different  description  from  that, 
which  was  applied  by  St.  Paul.  For  instead  of 
applying  historical  facts,  as  types  of  other  facts, 
by  which  the  historical  verity  is  preserved,  they 
often  applied  them  in  such  a  manner,  that  tlie 
historical  verity  w^as  destroyed.  They  often  ex- 
plained histoiical  facts,  as  if  real  existence  no  more 


96  LECTURE  XVm. 

attached  to  tliem,  than  to  the  iinmcdiaie  represen- 
tation of  an  Allegory. 

We  have  reason  therefore  to  comiilain,  that  the 
early  Fathers  have  afforded  by  their  own  conduct 
a  pretext  to  modern  unbelievers  for  such  a  mode 
of  allegorical  interpretation.  It  is  true,  that  a 
mode,  Avhicli  is  indefensible  in  itself,  can  derive  no 
real  support  from  the  practices  of  those,  to  whom 
authority  no  more  attaches,  than  to  any  modern 
interpreter.  And  whatever  confidence  the  Church 
of  Home  may  repose  in  the  expositions  of  her  Fa- 
thers, we  may  hence  learn,  that  such  confidence  is 
ill  bestowed.  Indeed  the  early  Fathers,  by  their 
injudicious  conduct  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Bible,  not  only  affected  many  parts  of  its  history, 
but  placed  the  Bible  itself  in  a  very  false  and  in- 
jurious light.  Though  they  silenced,  by  tjie  aid 
of  Allegory,  tlieir  immediate  opponents,  w  lio  argu- 
ed on  the  same  'principles,  yet  the  very  circum- 
stance, that  principles,  applied  to  the  defence  of 
the  Heathen  mythology,  were  applied  also  to  the 
defence  of  the  Bible,  could  produce  no  other  effect, 
than  that  of  degrading  the  latter  to  the  level  of  the 
former.  When  a  passage  of  the  Bible,  conveying 
professedly  an  historical  fact,  was  defended  against 
the  objections  of  the  Heathens  by  resolving  that  pas- 
sage into  a  mere  Allegory,  the  veil,  which  was 
thus  drawn  over  it,  served  only  to  present  it  in  the 
same  dress,  in  which  the  Heathens  exhibited  the 
fables  of  their  Gods.     The  latter  indeed  had  some 


LECTURE  XVllI.  §7 

excuse  for  their  allegorical  interpretations ;  they 
had  7'easoniov  concealing  under  the  veil  of  Allego- 
ry their  ludicrous  and  indecorous  legends.  Hence 
Arnohius,  in  his  treatise  adversns  Gentes,  addres- 
ses himself  to  a  Heathen  in  the  following  manner  : 
Istce  omnes  Mstorke,  qum  tibi  turpes  videntm\ 
atque  ad  labem  pertinere  divinam,  mysteria  in  sp 
continent  sancta,  rationes  miras  atque  altas»  nee 
quas  facile  qiiivis  possit  ingenii  vivacitate  pevnos- 
cere.  JS'eqiie  enim  quod  scriptum  est,  at^ue  in 
prima  est  positum  verhorum  fronte,  id  si^nijicatur 
et  dicitiir,  sed  allegoricls  sensihus,  et  suhditivis 
intelliguntur  omnia  ilia  Secretis.  But  tiiat  Chri». 
tian  Commentators  should  in  like  manner  have 
sought  for  allegorical  senses  and  hidden  meanings 
in  the  Bible,  where  the  Sacred  Writers  liave  re- 
corded the  plain  and  simple  words  of  Truth,  of 
Truth  which  has  7io  deformity  to  hide^  and  needs 
not  the  veil  of  xYUegory,  affords  equal  matter  of 
surprise  and  of  regret. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  evil,  which  has  arisen  from 
such  a  treatment  of  Scripture.  If  the  literal  or 
grammatical  meaning  of  a  passage  may  be  exciiang- 
ed  at  pleasure  for  a,n  allegorical  meaning,  the 
meaning  of  Scripture  w  ill  be  involved  in  perfect 
ambiguity:  it  will  assume  as  many  different  forms, 
as  the  fancies  of  interpreters  are  multifarious.  In 
grammatical  interpretation,  which  is  an  interpre- 
tation of  words,  there  arc  certain  rides  of  inter- 
pretation, from  which  we  cannot  depart.     Bat  al- 


9S  LECTURE  XVIII. 

legorical  interpretation,  which  is  an  interpretation 
of  things,  is  subjected  to  neither  rule  nor  limit. 
As  soon  as  an  interpreter  has  learnt,  what  things 
are  literally  signified  by  the  words  of  a  passage, 
he  has  notliing  else  to  do,  than  to  let  loose  his 
imagination  for  the  discovery  of  some  other  things, 
which  may  resemble  the  things  literally  signified, 
and  then  those  other  things  will  at  once  be  alle- 
goricdUy  slgnilied.  And  since  the  same  thing 
may  to  various  interpreters  suggest  various  resem- 
blances, the  same  passage  may  have  as  many 
allegorical  meanings,  as  there  are  persons,  who 
inidertake  its  interpretation.  Hence  Arnobius,  in 
contijuiation  of  tliis  subject,  observes,  Potest  alius 
aliud,  et  argutius  finger e,  et  veri  cum  similitudine 
suspicari.  Potest  aliud  tertius ;  jmiest  aliud 
quartus :  atqiiCy  ut  se  tulerint  ingeniorum  opinan- 
tium  qualitates,  ita  singulce  res  possunt  ivfinitis 
interpretationibus  explicari.  Cum  enim  e  rebus 
occlusis  omnis  ista,  quce  dicilur  Jillegoria,  sumatur, 
nee  habeat  finem  certum,  in  quo  rei,  quce  dicitur, 
sit  fixa  atque  immota  sententia,  unicuique  liberum 
est  in  id,  quo  velit,  attrahere  lectioncm,  et  ajjirmare 
id  positum,  in  quod  eum  sua  suspicio,  et  conjectu- 
ra  opinabilis  duxerit. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  numerous  objections, 
to  which  this  mode  of  interpretation  is  exposed,  it 
has  prevailed,  more  or  less,  in  almost  every  age  of 
Ciiristianity.  Indeed  the  very  causes,  which 
should  have  led  to  the  rejection  of  it,  are  the  causes 


LECTURE  XVllI.  9^ 

which  have  operated  in  its  favour.  For  tliongh  a 
mode  of  interpretation;  which  may  he  applied  to 
any  purpose,  is  really  fit  for  no  purpose,  yet,  if  au 
interpreter  has  no  other  means  of  attaining  his  pur- 
pose, he  finds  it  difficult  to  withstand  the  tempta- 
tion of  employing  what  is  always  at  hand  for 
every  purpose.  The  use,  which  was  made  of  it 
by  the  early  Fathers,  and  the  advantage  taken  of 
their  injudicious  conduct,  have  heen  already  ex- 
plained. But  allegorical  interpretation,  when  once 
adopted,  was  not  long  confined  to  the  controver- 
sies between  tlie  Greek  Fathers  and  the  Greek 
philosophers.  It  was  soon  discovered  to  be  equal- 
ly useful  for  controversy  of  every  description.  And 
hence,  if  one  opinion  was  supported  by  grammati- 
cal interpretation,  a  different  opinion  could  be  as 
easily  supported  by  allegorical  interpretation.  But 
beside  the  motive  of  utility,  there  was  something  at- 
tractive in  the  thing  itself.  The  imagination,  delight- 
ing in  allegory,  is  easily  charmed  into  allegorical 
interpretation,  while  the  dryness  o^ grammatical  in- 
terpretatiou  is,  in  an  equal  degree,  an  object  of  its 
aversion.  The  former  was  recommended  also  by 
the  facility  of  its  application,  while  the  exercise  of 
the  latter  required,  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter,  at 
\ea.si  some  share  of  knowledge  and  judgment.  It 
is  no  wonder  therefore,  that  in  proportion  as  learn- 
ing declined,  the  passion  for  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion increased.  And  the  use  of  grammatical  in- 
terpretation having  been  proportionally  diminished 


100  LECTURE  XVIII. 

in  the  Church  of  Rome  by  the  substitution  of  an 
authorised  version  for  the  original  Scriptures,  there 
at  length  arose,  in  the  darkness  of  the  middle  ages, 
a  race  of  Fanatics,  who  rejected  grammatical  inter- 
pretation altogetlier.  They  were  distinguished  in 
the  twelfth  century  by  the  appellation  of  the  Mys- 
tics, from  their  mystical  mode  of  interpreting  Scrip- 
ture. These  Mystics  had  an  utter  contem'pt  for 
human  reason,  and  human  learning:  they  supposed 
themselves  especially  guided  by  the  Spirit;  and 
hence  they  compensated,  by  a  kind  of  spiritual 
interpretation,  for  that  grammatical  interpretation, 
which  they  had  never  learnt.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
absence  of  the  Greek  original,  supplied  them  with 
an  argument  for  the  rejection  of  literal  or  gra^n- 
matical  interpretation,  and  the  adoption  of  spirit- 
ual or  allegorical  interpretation,  which  Ihe  original 
itself  does  not  supply.  They  appealed  namely 
to  that  passage  in  St.  Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  which  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  is  trans- 
lated ^  litera  occidit,  spiritus  autem  vivificat  f  and 
in  our  oicn  authorised  version,  *the  letter  killeth, 
but  the  spirit  giveth  life.'  In  this  passage,  the 
Mystics  imagined  that  St.  Paul  was  drawing  a 
parallel  between  two  different  kinds  of  interpre- 
tation. Construing  therefore  Hitera'  by  'literal 
interpretation,'  and  ^spiritus  '  by  'spiritual  inter- 
pretation,' they  inferred,  that  the  Apostle  had 
condemned  the  fovmer,  and  recommended  the  ex- 


LECTURE  XVIII.  101 

elusive  employment  of  the  latter.  Now  the  Apos- 
tle, according  to  his  oicn  words,  was  drawing  a  pa- 
rallel of  a  totally  different  description :  a  parallel, 
which  had  no  concern  whatever  with  interpretation. 
He  was  drawing  a  parallel  between  the  Law  of 
Moses  and  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  The  former 
does  not  afford  the  means  of  salvation  :  the  latter 
does  afford  the  means  of  salvation.  This,  and  this 
only^  is  what  St.  Paul  meant,  when  he  said,  that 
the  one  killeth,  and  that  the  other  giveth  life.  It  is 
true,  that  he  applied  the  term  T^ocuf^a,  to  the  form- 
er, the  term  ITj/jy^a  to  the  latter.  But  then  he  ad- 
ded explanations  of  those  terms,  which  remove  all 
ambiguity.  The  Law  of  Moses  he  called  T^ocf^f^a, 
as  being  Atuxovia  \v  y^a,f/,f^U!rty  as  being  AtuKovicc 
hrsrvTrcouAvfj  h  "ktQoig.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  ha 
called  Uvsvf^ct,  as  being  AietKovicc  rov  Uvevf/jUTo?  eif 
oo^r,.  Now,  as  these  explanations  arc  not  only 
Greek  explanations,  but  Greek  explanations  of 
Greek  terms,  they  are  absolutely  incapable  of  teing 
transfused  into  any  version.  They  can  be  under- 
stood only,  with  reference  to  the  words  of  the  orig- 
inal.  It  is  therefore  impossible,  that  any  one  who 
expounds  this  passage  from  the  v/ords  of  a  trans- 
lotion,  should  expound  it  in  the  sense  of  the  Jluthor. 
But  as  the  Mystics,  like  other  members  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  expounded  from  an  authorised 
version,  they  fell  into  an  error,  which  a  knowledge 
of  the  original  would  have  prevented.  They  fell 
into  the  error  of  supposing,  that  literal  or  grammat- 
1^ 


162  LECTURE  XVIII. 

ical  exposition  not  only  might  be,  but  ought  to  be 
discharged.  And  hence  they  acquired  such  a  con- 
tempt for  every  thing  not  spiiytual  or  allegorical, 
that  the  p  ain  and  literal  meaning  of  a  passage  was 
regarded  as  a  sort  of  husk,  or  chaff,  fit  only  for  the 
carnally-minded,  and  not  suited  to  the  taste  of  the 
godly. 

But  whatever  absurdities  might  result  from  their 
interpreting  the  New  Testament  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  Greek,  the  Mystics  were  in  no  danger 
of  ohserving  them.  And  in  other  respects  the  use 
of  a  translation  was  really  advantageous.  They 
could  more  easily  lend  it  to  their  particular  pur- 
pose :  for,  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  the 
words  of  a  translation  are  always  more  pliant, 
than  the  words  of  the  original.  The  obscurity,  in 
which  the  sense  of  Scripture  was  thus  involved,  so 
far  from  being  thought  injurious,  afforded  them  both 
pleasure  and  protection.  Mystical  interpreters 
delight  in  obscurity :  obscurity  is  their  proper 
element.  If  a  passage  is  obscure  in  itself,  they 
are  in  less  danger  of  being  thwarted  by  a  literal 
meaning.  If  they  inaJce  it  obscure,  they  obtaia 
this  advantage,  that  the  greater  the  obstacles,  which 
they  can  oppose  to  the  judgment,  the  greater  is 
the  scope  for  the  exercise  of  the  fancy.  This  fan- 
cy has  been  equally  indulged  by  the  Mystics  of 
every  age ;  and  however  eccentric  we  may  think 
the  expositions  displayed  in  the  Area  mystica,  or 
Mystical  Ark,  of  Richard  of  St.  Victor,  who  flour- 


LECTURE  XVIII.  103 

isbed  in  the  twelfth  centuiy,  they  have  been  fully 
equalled  by  the  mystical  expositions  of  these  lat- 
ter times.  Nor  is  it  by  any  means  a  matter  of  as- 
tonishment, that  spiritual  interpretation  should  rec- 
ommend  itself  to  our  modern  practitioners.  No 
grammatical  analysis,  no  knowledge  of  Hebrew  or 
Greek,  no  knowledge  of  antiquity,  no  knowledge  ot 
the  situation  and  circumstances,  either  of  the  author, 
or  of  his  original  readers,  is  necessary  for  this  pur 
pose.  Such  knosvledge  is  wanted  only  for  gram- 
matical interpretation.  It  is  wanted  only,  when 
the  words,  which  we  interpret,  are  destiued  to  per- 
form the  office,  for  which  they  were  originally  in- 
tended. It  is  wanted  only,  wlien  the  words,  which 
we  interpret,  are  considered,  as  signs  to  the  reader 
of  what  was  thought  by  the  author.  But  the  ex- 
pounder, who  regards  them  as  passive  instruments 
disposeable  at  his  own  will,  and  who  employs  them, 
as  machines  for  the  conveyance  of  his  own  thoughts^ 
is  freed  at  once  from  the  shackles,  which  bind  the 
grammatical  interpreter,  and  is  exempted  from  all 
other  wants,  than  merely  that  of  knowing  what  is 
best  adapted  to  his  02cn  purpose. 

Men,  who  are  little  versed  in  the  history  of 
biblical  interpretation,  and  have  never  witnessed 
the  iconders,  that  are  done  by  the  aid  of  allegory, 
will  be  surprised  perhaps  to  hear,  that  the  Supre- 
macy of  the  Pope  has  been  discovered  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis.  The  interpreter,  who  made 
this  discovery,  was  himself  a  sovereign  pontiff',  and 


¥ 


104  LECTURE  XVllI. 

on&,  who  exercised  that  supremacy  with  unlimited 
sicay.  It  was  Pope  Innocent  the  Third;  the 
same,  who  excommunicated  King  John  of  England, 
and  who  threatened  even  the  Emperor  of  Constan- 
tinople. For  this  purpose  he  addressed  to  him  a 
Latin  Epistle,  in  which  he  quoted  from  the  first 
chapter  of  Grenesis  the  passage  relating  to  the 
two  great  lights,  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day, 
the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night.  By  these  two 
lights,  said  he,  are  meant  the  office  of  Pope  and 
the  office  of  King ;  by  the  greater  light  is  meant 
the  former  office,  by  the  lesser  light  the  latter 
office ;  so  that,  as  the  light,  which  rules  the  day, 
is  superior  to  the  light,  which  rules  the  night, 
the  dignity  of  Pojpe  is  superior  to  the  dignity  of 
King.  Lest  this  interpretation  should  appear 
incredible,  I  will  give  the  words  of  the  original 
Epistle.  Pope  Innocent  III.  then,  having  quoted 
from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  Fecit  Dens  duo  liiminaria 
magna,  luminare  majiis,  ut  jwceesset  did,  et  Inmi- 
nare  minus,  ut  prceesset  nocti,  subjoined  the  fol- 
lowing  interpretation ;  Id  est,  duas  dignitates 
instituit,  quce  sunt,  Pontificalis  Auctoritas,  et 
Megalis  Majestas.  Sed  ilia,  quce  prceest  diebus, 
id  est  spiritualibus,  major  est  altera,  quce  noctibus, 
id  est,  carnalibus  /  ut  quanta  est  inter  Solem  et 
Liinam,  tanta  inter  Fontijices  et  Reges,  differen- 
tia cognoscatur.  Now  this  allegorical  interpre- 
tation, absurd  as  it  may  appear,  is  not  more  absurd, 
than  many,  which  are  vented  in  the  present  age. 


LECTURE  XVIII.  lOiS 

it  is  however  absurd  enough:  for  the  comparison 
is  not  only  unwarranted,  but  is  an  actual  inver- 
sion of  the  truth.  The  things  spiritual^  and  the 
things  carnal,  to  which  reference  is  here  made, 
should  have  changed  their  position ;  the  lumina- 
ries should  have  been  transjwsed.  For  spiritual 
dominion,  whether  exercised  by  the  Pope,  or  by 
those  who  resemble  him,  is  not  a  power,  that  rules 
the  day,  but  a  power,  that  rules  the  night. 

Let  us  now  consider  that  kind  of  allegorical 
interpretation,  which  consists  in  the  application 
of  things,  recorded  in  the  OW  Testament,  to  sfwzz- 
lar  things  recorded  in  the  ^eiv  Testament.  That 
kind  may  be  properly  called  typical  interpretation  ; 
for  it  is  an  application  of  types  to  their  antitypes. 
It  is  warranted  by  the  authority  of  the  Sacred 
Writers  themselves.  But  they  have  warranted  the 
use  of  it  only  to  a  certain  extent;  and,  if  we 
transgress  the  limits,  which  they  have  prescribed, 
we  shall  be  in  perpetual  danger  of  taking  things 
for  what  they  were  not  designed  to  be.  To  con- 
stitute one  thing  the  type  of  another,  as  the  term 
is  generally  understood  in  reference  to  Scripture, 
something  more  is  wanted  than  mere  resemblance. 
The  former  must  not  only  resemble  the  latter,  but 
must  have  been  designed  to  resemble  the  latter. 
It  must  have  been  so  designed  in  its  original  in- 
stitution. It  must  have  been  designed  as  some- 
thing preparatory  to  the  latter.  The  type,  as  well 
as    the    antitype;,    jnust    have   been  pre-ordained: 


106  LECTURE  XVIII. 

and  they  must  have  been  pre-ordained,  as  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  same  general  scheme  of  divine 
providence.  It  is  this  previous  design^  and  this 
pre-ordained  connexion,  which  constitute  the  re- 
lation of  type  and  antitype.  Where  these  qualities 
fail,  where  the  previous  design  and  the  pre-ordain- 
ed connexion  are  wanting,  the  relation  between 
any  two  things,  however  similar  in  themselves,  is 
not  the  relation  of  hjpe  to  antitype.  The  exist- 
ence therefore  of  that  previous  design  and  pre-or- 
dained connexion  must  be  clearly  established,  be- 
fore we  can  have  authority  for  pronouncing  one 
thing  the  type  of  another.  But  we  cannot  establish 
the  existence  of  that  previous  design  and  pre-ordain- 
ed connexion,  by  arguing  only  from  the  resem- 
blance of  the  things  compared.  For  the  qualities 
and  circumstances,  attendant  on  one  thing,  may 
have  a  close  resemblance  with  the  qualities  and  cir- 
cumstances attendant  on  another  thing,  and  yet  the 
things  themselves  may  be  devoid  of  all  connexion. 
How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  shall  we  obtain  the 
proof  required  ?  By  what  meaus  shall  we  deter- 
mine, in  any  given  instance,  that  what  is  alleged 
as  a  type  was  really  designed  for  a  type  ?  Now 
the  only  possible  source  of  information  on  this 
subject  is  Scripture  itself.  The  only  possible 
means  of  knowing,  that  two  distant,  though  simi- 
lar, historic  facts,  were  so  connected  in  the  general 
scheme  of  divine  Providence,  that  the  one  was 
designed  to  pre-figure  the  other,  is  the  authority 


LECTURE  XVIII.  10? 

ot'that  Work,  in  which  the  scheme  of  divine  Prov- 
idence is  unfolded.      Destitute  of  that  authority, 
we   may    confound  a    resemblance,   subsequently 
observed,  with,  a  resemblance  2^7'e-or6?aitte^  .•  we  may 
mistake  a  comparison,  founded  on  a  mere  accident- 
al parity  of  circumstances,  for  a  camparison,  found- 
ed on  a  necessary  and  inherent  connexion.    There 
is  no  other  rule,  therefore,  by  which  we  can  distin- 
guish a  real  from  a  'pretended  type,  than  that   of 
Scripture  itself.  There  are  no  qW\q.x  possible  means^ 
by  which  we  can  know,  that  a  previous  design,  and 
a   pre-ordained    connexion     existed.      Whatever 
persons,  or  things  therefore,  recorded  in    the  Old 
Testament,  were  expressly  declared  by  Christ,  or 
by  his  Apostles,  to  have  been  designed  as  pre- 
figurations   of  persons   or  things   relating  to   the 
JK*ew  Testament,  such  persons  or  things,  so  record- 
ed in  the  former,  are  types  of  the  persons  or  things, 
with  which  they  are  compared  in  the  latter.     But 
if  we  assert,  that  a  person,  or  thing,  was  designed 
to  pre-figure  another  person  or  thing,   where  no 
such  pve-figuration  has  been  declared  by  divine  au- 
thority, we  make  an  assertion,  for  which  we  nei- 
ther have,  nor  can  have,  the  sliglitest  foundation. 
And  even  when  comparisons  are  in«^tituted  in  the 
New  Testament   between   antecedent  and  subse- 
quent  persons  or  things,  we  must  be  careful  to  dis- 
tinguish the  examples,  where  a  comparison  is  insti- 
tuted  merely  for  tlie  sake   of  illustration,   from 
the  examples,  where  suqh  a  connexion  is  declar- 


\oi  LECTURE  XVlir. 

ed,  as  exists  ia  the   relation  of  a  type  to  its  anti« 
type. 

The  consequences  of  neglecting  the  precautions 
here  proposed  are  sufficiently  apparent  in  the  his- 
tory of  typical  interpretation.  Volumes  have  been 
filled  with  types  and  antitypes,  which  exist  only 
in  tlie  fancy  of  the  writers.  Men  of  lively  imagi- 
nation  are  continually  at  work  for  the  discovery  of 
resemblances,  while  judgment  and  erudition  are 
not  always  at  hand,  to  suggest  the  differences. 
Things  really  discordant  are  thus  supposed  to  be 
consonant :  and  they  are  united  on  the  ground  of 
similaritif,  when  their  difference  should  have  led  to 
a  separation.  But,  when  once  they  are  brought 
together,  however  fanciful  their  resemblance,  it 
is  but  a  small  additional  effort  of  the  imagination, 
to  perceive  in  the  one  a  symbol  of  the  other.  And 
the  things,  when  thus  symbolized,  find  an  easy 
transition  into  types  and  antitypes.  Suppose  how- 
ever, that  the  resemblance  between  the  things  them- 
selves would  bear  the  strictest  inquiry,  yet  if  the 
inference  be  drawn  without  a  proof  of  previous  de- 
sign and  pre-ordained  connexion,  we  may  still 
multiply  our  types  and  antitypes  without  end. 
Even  the  self-same  type  may  be  provided  with 
various  antitypes,  according  to  the  different  views 
of  the  interpreters.  For  the  discovery  of  types 
and  antitypes  is  often  determined  by  the  religious 
farty,  to  which  the  interpreter  belongs,  or  by  the 
peculiar  sentiments,  which   the  interpreter  enter- 


LECTURE  XVIII.  109 

tains.  Thus  Cardinal  Bellarraine,  in  his  treatise 
De  Laicis,  discovered,  that  the  secession  of  the 
Protestants  under  Luther  was  typified  by  the  se- 
cession of  the  Ten  Tribes  under  Jeroboam  ;  while 
the  Lutherans  with  equal  reason  retorted,  that  Jero- 
boam was  a  type  of  the  Pope,  and  that  the  secession 
of  Israel  from  Judah  typified,  not  the  secession  of 
the  Protestants  under  Luther,  but  the  secession  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  from  primitive  Christianity. 
But  to  wiiichever  of  the  two  events  the  secession 
under  Jeroboam  may  be  supposed  the  most  similar^ 
(if  similarity  exists  there  at  all  beyond  the  mere 
acf  of  secession)  we  have  no  authority  for  pronounc- 
ing it  a  type  of  either.  We  have  no  proof  of  pre- 
vious design,  and  of  pre-ordained  connexion  between 
the  subjects  of  comparison :  we  have  no  proof, 
that  the  secession  of  the  Israelites  under  Jeroboam 
was  designed  to  pre-figure  any  other  secession 
whatever.  This  single  example  is  sufficient  to 
show  what  abuse  may  be  raa.de  of  typical  interpre- 
tation :  and  though  examples  might  be  easily  mul- 
tiplied, by  cpiotations  from  various  authors,  the 
precautions  already  given  will  serve  to  secure  us 
from  error,  without  further  inquiry  into  the  errors  of 
others. 

The  subject  of  allegorical  and  typical  interpre- 
tation having  been  thus  concluded,  our  next  inqui- 
ry must  be  directed  to  the  interpretation  o^  proph- 
ecy.    For  the  interpretation  of  prophecy  is  so  far 
15 


iio  LECTURE  XVIIL 

connected  with  typical  interpretation,  as  types  are 
prophetic  of  their  antitypes.  But  the  interpreta- 
tion of  prophecy  opens  such  a  field  of  investigation, 
and  involves  so  many  important  considerations, 
that  it  must  be  reserved  for  another  season. 

END  OF  PART  III, 


Boston  Bookstore. 


CvyntiTsos  &  Hilliard,  at  No.  1,  Cornhlll,  Boston,  and  at  their 
Bookstore  in  Cambridge,  have  lately  published  the  ioUowing 
valuable  works,  viz. 

CUMAHNGS'  GEOGRAPHY  Sc  ATLAS. 

This  introduction  to  Ancient  and  Modem  Geography  was 
first  published  in  May  1813,  since  which  (now  eighteen  months) 
about  700U  copies  have  been  disposed  of  It  has  received  the 
decided  approbation  of  the  best  judges,  and  has  been  introduced 
into  the  first  schools  and  academies  in  Boston,  and  most  of  tlie 
otlier  principal  towns  in  New  England.  Several  hundreds  have 
gone  into  tlie  Middle  States,  especially  into  New  York,  wiiere 
the  demand  for  it  is  fast  increasing.  As  fartlier  recommenda- 
tion it  may  be  stated,  that  scholars  will  hereafter  be  examined  in 
Ancient  and  Modern  Geogi-aphy  according  to  tl;e  plan  of  this 
work,  for  admission  into  Harvard  College  at  Cambridge. 

This  Geography  is  accompanied  with  an  Atlas  o^ eight  JMod- 
ern  and  four  .^Indent  JMaps,  bound  either  together,  or  separate, 
as  may  best  suit  the  convenience  of  scholars  and  teachers. 

GUMMING  S'  TESTAMENT. 

N.  B.  Citmmings  ^  Hilliard  have  just  published  an  edition  of 
the  JVe-M  Testament  in  a  clear,  plain  type,  with  an  Introdnctio7i, 
giving  an  account  of  the  Je~vish  and  other  sects  ;  with  J\'otes,  il- 
lustrating obscure  passages,  and  explaining  obsolete  vords  and 
phrases  ;  to  which  are  added  Rules  for  pronouncing  Scripture 
Proper  JVumes,  a  catalogue  of  the  Proper  JK'ames  in  the  Testa- 
ment correctly  accented  according  to  Walker,  and  four  maps  of 
the  countries,  through  which  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles  trav- 
elled ;  for  the  use  of  Schools,  Academies,  and  Private  Families. 

VALPEY'S  GREEK  GRAMMAR. 

Cummings  &  Hilliard  have  also  just  published  the  first  Amer- 
ican edition  of  Vcdpeifs  Greek  G-rammar,  a  work  in  great  estima- 
tion, and  extensive  use  in  England,  and  which  in  the  opinion  of 
good  judges  is  better  calculated  for  general  use,  than  any  before 
published  in  tliis  country.  The  arrangement  of  the  Grammar  is 
simple,  the  Syntax  is  full  and  particular,  and  much  light  is  thrown 
on  the  subject  of  Accents  and  derivation.  There  are  added  an 
explanation  of  grammatical  terms,  and  a  SjTiopsis  of  parsing,  de- 
signed early  to  Initiate  the  learner  into  a  correct  and  regular 
mode  of  parsing  each  word,  without  constant  application  to  the 
instructor  for  direction. 


Locke's  Essays 

Bigelow's  Plants  of  Boston 

Bichat  on  the  Membranes 

Adams'  Lectures  on  Rhetoric 

Alison  on  Taste 

Allen's  Biographical  Dictionary 


Walker's  Rhetorical  Grammar 
Evans'  Sermons 
Wilson's  Sacra  Privata 
Wellbeloved's  Devotional  Exer- 
cises 
Fitzosborne's  Letters 


t/V^u;  Publications  continued. 


Collectanea  Grxca  Majora 
Do.  Minora 

JEsop's  Fables  in  Gi-eek 
Livy 
New  Testament  with  Notes  and 

Maps 
Geography  of  New  Testament 

with  Maps 
Lowth's  English  Grammar 
Evening's  at  Home 
Mrs.  Edgeworth's  Early  Lessons 


Rational  Sports 

Horace  in  London 

Junius'  Letters 

Bishop    Watson's    Address    to 

Youth 
Channing's  Sermon  on  the  Duties 

of  Children 
Byron's  Poetical  Works  compL 
A  few  Weeks  in  Paris  during  the 

residence  of  the  allied  sove'ns 
Henry's  Chemistry,  &c.  &c. 


Cwnmings  &  Hilliard  have  also  constantly  on  hand  the  best  as" 
sortment  of  works  on  Divinity,  Medicine,  and  Law ;  a  varie" 
ty  of  Latin  and  Greek  Classics,  new  and  second  hand  ;  works 
on  Taste  ;  all  kinds  of  School  Books  ;  books  of  Devotion  and 
Piety  ;  Children's  books,  &c.  among  which  are  the  following : 


Latin  Classics. 
Alnsworth's  Dictionary 
Young's  Do. 

Entick's         Do. 
Adam's  Latin  Grammar 
Eigelow's  Abridgment  of  Do. 
Chever's  Accidence 
Latin  Tutor 
B)gelow's  Introduction  to  Mak 

ing  Latin 
Clarke's  Do. 
Delectus 
Latin  Pi  inier 
Corderius 
Historic  Sacrae 
Viri  Romae 
Narrationes  Excerpta 
Eutropius 
Jisop's  Tables 
Erasmus 
Nepos 

Selectse  e  Profanis 
Wilson's  Sallust 
Livy 

Cicero's  Orations 
Grotius  de  Veritate 
Cxsar's  Commentaries 
Virgil 
Horace 

Greek  Cissies. 
Grxca  Mojora 
Grscca  Minora 


Valpey's  Greek  Grammar 

Gloucester         Do. 

Smith's  Do. 

Moor'.s         Do. 

Jones'  Do. 

Port  royal        Do. 

Sell  revel  ius'  Lexicon 

Greek  Testament 

Xenophon 

Homer 

Longinus 

Neilson's  Greek  Exercises 

Huntingford's  Do 

J\EsceUaneo%is. 
Stewart's  Philosophical  Essaj's 
Stewart  on  tlie  Mind 
Lempriere's  Classical  Dictionary 

Biographical  Do. 


Smellie's  Philosophy  of  Nat.  His. 
{^ovvper's  Translation  of  Homer 
Pliny's  Letters 
Gillie's  Greece 
Reloe's  Heroditus 
Artist's   Manual 
Paley's  Works 
Priestley's  Lectures 
Life  of  Washington 
Murray's  Grammar 
Lewis  and  Clarke's  Expedition 
Hume's  Hist,  of  England,    Con- 
tinued by    Bisset  and  Smollet 
Bos  well's  Johnson,  &c.  Sec. 


COURSE  OF  LECTURES, 


CONTAIMNS    A 


DESCRIPTION  AND  SYSTEMATIC  ARRANGEMENT 

OF    THE    SEVEUAL 

BRANCHES  OF  DIVINITY : 

ACCOMPANIED     -WITH 

AN      ACCOUNT,    BOTH     OF      THE    PRINCIPAL      AUTHORS,    AND     OF     THE 

PROGRESS,    WHICH    HAS    BEEN    MADE    AT 

DIFFERENT     PERIODS, 

IS 

THEOLOGICAL  LEARNING. 


BY  HERBERT  MARSH,  D.  D.  F.  R.  S. 

MARGARET    PBOFESSOR    OF    BIVINITr, 


PART    IV. 

On  the  Interpretation  of  Prophecy. 


BOSTON  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  CUMMINGS  AND  HILLIARD, 

Boston  Bookstore,  No.  1  Cornhill. 

Univ.  Press Hilliard  &  MetcalK 

1819. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  XIX. 


CoNTfEXiosr  between  the  interpretation  of  types^  and  the 
interpretation  of  prophecy.  Ji  type  is  a  species  of  prophecy. 
Of  the  difference  between  real  and  imaginary  types.  Pro- 
phetic character  of  a  real  type.  The  principles,  here 
applied  to  the  inteiyretation  of  types,  illustrated  by  two 
examples,  the  one  relating  to  Baptism,  the  other  to  the 
Lord^s  Supper.  Digression  on  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism 
as  connected  with  Regeneration,  occasioned  by  the  present 
controversy  on  that  subject.  Mditional  remarks  on  the 
previous  design,  which  is  essential  to  the  character  of  a 
real  type.  Revelation  alone  can  afford  an  explanation 
of  types.  False  reasoning  about  their  obscurity.  Prophecies 
delivered  by  words  subject  to  the  same  difficulties  as 
prophecies  delivered  by  things.  Of  the  qualifications 
necessary  for  an  interpreter  of  Hebrew  prophecy. 

LECTURE    XX. 

The  general  principles  of  interpretation,  which  were  ex- 
plained in  Lecture  xiii — xvii,  applicable  to  the  inteiyret- 
ation  of  prophecy.  Whether  the  inspiration  of  suggestion, 
which  is  absolutely  necessary  in  prophecy,  creates  a 
difference  in  the  principle  of  interpretation.  The  prophe- 
cies relating  to  the  Messiah  selected  for  particular  exam- 
ination, not  only  on  account  of  their  importance,  but 
because  they  involve  almost  every  question  of  real  interest 
in  the  subject  of  prophecy  in  general.  Connexion  between 


Page. 


rV  CONTENTS. 


Pdge. 


these  prophecies  and  the  truth  of  our  religion.  Frequent 
appeals  to  these  prophecies,  both  by  Christ,  and  by  his 
Apostles,  as  prophecies,  which  testified  of  Christ,  and 
which  7vere fulfilled  in  his  Divine  Mission.  Prophecies 
of  this  description  must  be  prophecies,  which  relate  to  the 
coming  of  Christ,  according  to  their  literal  and  primary 
sense     ------ 20 

LECTURE    XXI. 

The  importance  o/"  literal  prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah 
further  considered.     Various  examples  of  such  prophecies 
quoted  and  explained    -     -     -     -------36 

LECTURE    XXII. 

Jin  inquiry  into  the  foundation  ofsecondary  senses,  ascribed 
to  Hebrew  prophecy.  Of  the  difficulties,  xvith  which 
that  notion  is  attended.  The  primary  and  secondary 
senses  of  a  Hcbretv  prophecy  have  no  analogy  to  the  double 
meaning  observable  in  various  examples  of  heathen 
oracles.  J\''or  have  they  any  resemblance  to  the  double 
sense  of  an  allegory.  Bishop  TFarburton^s  system  of 
primary  and  secondary  senses  considered.  The  existence 
of  secondary  senses  can  be  previously  established  by  no 
system  whatever.  In  every  single  instance  they  depend 
entirely  on  the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Ex- 
planation of  this  position.  Some  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  are  qtwted  in  the  JVew  Testament,  are 
applied,  neither  as  prophecy  in  a  primary  sense,  nor  as 
j)rophecy  in  a  secondary  sense,  but  merely  in  the  way  of 
accommodation 55 


LECTURE  XIX. 


ii-S  we  proceeded  in  the  last  Lecture  from  the  in- 
terpretation of  allegory  to  the  interpretation  of  types, 
so  we  may  now  proceed  from  the  interpretation  of 
types  to  the  interpretation  of  prophecy.  There  is 
indeed  a  natural  connexion  between  the  one  and  the 
other  :  for  since  a  type  is  not  an  accidental,  but  a  de- 
signed prefiguration  of  its  antitype,  it  is  virtually  a 
prediction  of  its  antitype.  Nor  is  the  resemblance 
between  types  and  prophecy  confined  to  the  things 
themselves;  it  extends  also  to  the  principles,  by 
which  they  must  be  interpreted.  The  pi'inciples, 
which  apply  to  the  interpretation  of  types,  having 
been  already  explained,  it  is  unnecessary  to  repeat 
them  in  detail :  but  it  will  be  proper  to  take  a  gener- 
al view  of  them,  that  the  analogy  of  the  former  to  the 
present  subject  may  be  distinctly  seen. 

To  constitute  a  type,  something  more  is  requisite, 
than  a  mere  resemblance  of  that,  which  is  called  its 
antitype.  For  one  thing  may  resemble  another,  when 
the  things  themselves  are  totally  unconnected.  But 
it  is  the  very  essence  of  a  type,  to  have  a  necessary 


2  LECTURE  XIX. 

connexion  with  its  antitype.     It  must  have  been  de- 
signed, and  designed  from  the  A'ery  beginning,  to  pre- 
figure its  antitype  ;  or  it  partakes  not  of  that  charac- 
ter, which  belongs  to  a  real  type ;  a  character,  which 
implies,  not  an  accidental  parity  of  circumstances, 
but  a  pre-ordained  and  inherent  connexion  between 
the    things    themselves.      Where    this   character   is 
wanting,  there  is  wanting  that  relation  of  type  to  an- 
titype, which  subsists  between  the  things  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  things  of  the  New.     And  the  on- 
ly mode  of  distinguishing  the  cases,  where  this  rela- 
tion actually  exists,  from  the  cases  where  it  is  only 
supposed  to  exist,  is  to  examine  what  things  in  the 
Old  Testament  have  been  represented  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  as  relating  to  things  in  the  New.     For 
then  we  have  authority  for   such  relation  :    then   we 
know,  that  one  thing  was  designed  to  prefigure  the 
other.     But  without  such  authority,  it  is  absolutely 
impossible,    that  we   should   obtain  the  knowledge, 
which  is  necessary  on  this  subject.     There  are  no 
human  means,  by  which  we  can  discover,  that  what 
has  happened  at  one  period,   or  in  one  nation,  was 
originally  intended  to  point  out  something  similar, 
which  should  happen  at  another  period,  or  in  anoth- 
■**     er  nation.     The  reality  of  such  previous  design,  the 
reality  of  a  fore-ordained  connexion  between  a  type 
and  its  antitype,  must  depend   therefore  entirely  on 
Ihe  authority  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 


LECTURE  XIX.  S 

Having  ascertained  the  mode^  by  which  alone  we 
can  discover  the  existence  of  a  type,  we  may  in  the 
next  place  consider  its  prophetic  character.  When 
two  apparently  independent  events,  distant  from  each 
other  many  hundreds,  or  even  some  thousands  of 
years,  are  so  connected  in  the  general  scheme  of  Di- 
vine Providence,  that  the  one  was  designed  to  indi- 
cate the  other,  the  one  is  no  less  prophetic  of  the  oth- 
er, tiian  a  verbal  declaration,  that  the  thing,  which 
forms  the  antitype,  would  in  due  season  be  accom- 
plished. Whether  a  future  event  is  indicated  by 
wordSf  or  indicated  by  other  tokens,  the  connexion  of 
that  event  with  the  words  in  the  one  case,  or  the  tok- 
ens in  the  other,  will  be  equally  a  fulfilling  of  proph- 
ecy. We  cannot  have  a  more  remarkable,  or  a  more 
important  example,  than  that  of  the  paschal  lamb,  as 
applied  to  the  death  of  Christ.  For  not  only  was  the 
paschal  lamb  sacrificed  for  the  sins  of  the  Jews  under 
circumstances  resembling  those,  under  which  our  Sa- 
viour was  sacrificed  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  but  we 
have  the  authority  of  Scripture  itself  for  the  asser- 
tion, that  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  was  from 
the  very  beginning  designed  to  indicate  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  on  the  cross.  AVhen  John  the  Baptist  first 
saw  our  Saviour,  he  exclaimed,  "Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world." 
St.  Paul  is  still  more  particular  :  for  he  says,  Christ, 
"  our  passover  is  sacrificed  for  us  :"  and  St.  Peter  de- 
clares, that  we  were  redeemed  "  with  the  precious 


4  LECTURE  XIX. 

blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot,  who  verily  was  fore-ordained^  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world.*'  From  a  comparison  of 
these  passages  we  learn,  not  only  that  the  two  sacri- 
fices resembled  each  other,  but  that  the  sacrifice  of 
the  paschal  iamb  was  originally  intended^  to  designate 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  former  sacrifice  therefore 
has  all  the  qualifications,  which  are  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  type.  And  since  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  instituted  by  Christ  himself  in 
remembrance  of  his  death  and  passion,  the  ceremo- 
ny, which  was  a  type  of  the  one,  may  be  considered 
as  a  type  also  of  the  other. 

Again,  as  the   sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb,  by 
prefiguring  the  death  of  Christ,  has  reference  to  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism  was  likewise  prefigured  by  an  event  of 
great  importance  in  the  history  of  the  Jews.     St. 
Paul,  in  his  first   Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  (x.  1.) 
says,    ^'  Brethren,  I  v/ould   not  that  ye   should  be 
ignorant,  how  that  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud, 
and  all  passed  through  the  sea,    and  were  baptiz- 
ed unto  jVloses  in  the  cloud,   and  in   the    sea:     and 
did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and  did  all  drink 
the  same   spiritual  drink ;    for  they  drank  of  that 
spiritual  liock,  that  followed  them,  and  that  Rock 
was  Christ."     In  this  passage  it  is  evident,  that  St. 
Paul  considered  the  being  baptized  unto  Moses,   as 
typical  of  being  baptized  unto  Christ.     The  Jews, 


LECTURE  XIX.  5 

who  admitted  proselytes  by  baptism,  appear  to  have 
generally  considered  the  passage  of  their  forefathers 
through  the  Red  Sea,  not  as  a  mere  insulated  histor- 
ical fact,  but  as  something  representative  of  admis- 
sion to  the  divine  favour  hy  baptism.  They  said, 
that  "they  were  baptized  in  the  desert,  and  admitted 
into  covenant  with  God  before  the  law  was  given.'' 
(See  Whitby  in  loc.)  On  the  authority  of  St.  Paul 
the  Church  of  England  also  considers  that  event  as 
a  type  of  baptism  :  for  in  the  baptismal  services  we 
pray  in  the  following  w^ords,  '<  Almighty  and  ever- 
lasting God,  who — didst  safely  lead  the  children  of 
Israel  thy  people  through  the  Red  Sea,  figuring 
thereby  thy  holy  Baptism.''  The  circumstances  al- 
so, which  attended  the  type,  accord  with  the  cir- 
cumstances attending  the  antitype.  When  the  fol- 
lowers of  Moses,  having  forsaken  Egypt,  passed 
through  the  Red  Sea,  in  their  progress  to  the  Holy- 
Land,  that  passage  was  to  them  an  entrance,  not 
only  into  a  new  temporal,  but  into  a  new  spiritual 
state.  In  like  manner,  the  followers  of  Christ, 
when  they  have  forsaken  sin,  and  passed  through  the 
laver  of  baptism,  on  their  progress  to  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  have  also  entered  into  a  new  spiritual 
state.  "  Know  ye  not  (saith  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  vi.  3.)  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  unto  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  unto  his 
death  ?" — and  therefore  that  we  "  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life  ?"     ^^  As  many  of  you  (saith  St.  Paul 


6  LECTURE  XIX. 

again  iu  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatiaus,  iii.  S7.)  as 
have  been  baptized  unto  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ." 
And  when  he  gave  an  account  of  his  own  conversion, 
in  the  speech  which  he  made  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusa- 
lem, he  used  the  following  words,  which,  though  ad- 
dressed to  him  by  Ananias,  he  sanctions  by  his  own 
repetition  of  them.  "  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.''  (Acts  xxii.  16.)  And  this  washing  away  of 
sin,  in  the  sacrament  of  Baptism,  the  same  Apostle 
in  his  Epistle  to  Titus  (iii.  6.)  has  called  ^'  the  wash- 
ing  of  regeneration.^^  Here  then  we  have  another  in- 
stance of  type  and  antitype,  ratified  by  the  authority 
of  a  divine  Apostle,  in  all  their  various  relations. 

Resting  on  such  divine  authority,  the  Church  of 
England  has  adopted  this  example  with  all  the  cir- 
cumstances, which  are  warranted  by  St.  Paul :  and 
since  in  this  particular  instance  our  Church  has  been 
lately  subjected  to  severe  and  unmerited  censure,  the 
occasion  requires  a  few  additional  remarks  in  its 
defence.  Our  twenty-seventh  Article  declares,  that 
"  Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark 
of  difterence,  whereby  Christian  men  are  distinguish- 
ed from  others,  that  are  not  christened,  but  it  is  also 
a  sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth,  whereby  as  by 
an  instrument,  they  that  receive  Baptism  rightly,  are 
grafted  into  the  Church,  the  promises  of  forgiveness 
of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sous  of  God  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed."    In 


LECTURE  XIX.  7 

the  several  services  for  Baptism;,  as  also  in  the  ser- 
vice for  Confirmation,  Regeneration  is  represented  as 
an  essential  part  of  Baptism.  It  is  the  inward  grace 
of  that,  of  which  water  is  the  outward  sign.  Nothing 
can  be  clearer  on  this  subject  than  our  Catechism, 
which  expressly  declares,  that  whereas  the  outward 
visible  sign  in  Baptism  is  "  Water  wherein  the  per- 
son is  baptized,"*  so  the  inward  spiritual  grace,  is  '^  a 
death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness." 
If  then  we  detach  regeneration  from  baptism,  we  not 
only  fall  into  the  absurdity  of  making  the  outward 
act  a  visible  sign  of  nothing  to  he  signified^  but  we 
destroy  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  as  a  Sacrament, 
altogether.  It  is  essential  to  a  Sacrament,  that  the 
outward  act  be  accompanied  with  an  inward  grace. 
If  Baptism,  therefore,  as  some  pretend,  is  nothing 
more,  than  ^^an  outward  work  of  man  upon  the  body,'^ 
it  is  a  perfect  mockery  of  religion  to  retain  it  as  a  cer- 
emony in  our  Church  :  for  if  such  only  be  Baptism,  it 
has  no  more  to  do  with  the  concerns  of  religion,  than 
the  common  ablutions  of  domestic  life.  Vain  is  the 
pretence  of  those,  who  assert,  that  we  imitate  the 
Church  of  Rome,  in  believing,  that  grace  is  conferred 
at  baptism  merely  exopere  operato,  (as  it  is  called  in 
the  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Trent.)  The  grace  of 
Grod  accompanies  the  outward  act :  but  the  outward 
act  is  not  the  efficient  cause  of  it.  The  twenty- 
seventh  Article  compares  indeed  Baptism  with  an 
instrument,  by  which  the  promises  of  God  to  forgive 


&  LECTURE  XIX. 

our  sins  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed.     But,  not  to 
mention,  that  in  every  legal  instrument  the  signing 
and  the  sealing  is  accompanied  with  the  declaration 
of  its  being  our  own  act  and  deed,  and  that  this  men- 
tal assent  is  the  thing,  which  gives /orce  to  the  signa- 
ture and  the  sea!,  the  comparison  in  question  is  limit- 
ed  by  the  very  words  of  the  Article  to  those,  who 
^*  receive  Baptism  righthj.^^  And  Baptism,  according 
to  the  general  rules  of  our  Church,  is  not  received 
rightly,  unless,  either  by  ourselves  or  by  our  sureties, 
we  make  professions  of  Repentance  and  Faith.  "  What 
is  required  (says  our  Catechism)  of  persons  to  be  bap- 
tized?    Repentance,  wliereby  they  forsake  sin  ;  and 
Faith,  whereby  they  stedfastly  believe   the  promises 
of  God  made  to  them  in  that  Sacrament."  Conforma- 
bly with  this  doctrine  of  our  Catechism,  godfathers  and 
godmothers,  in  the  name  of  the  child  to  be  baptized, 
make  a  public  declaration,  before  the  baptism  itself  is 
administered,  that  they  renounce  sin,  and  believe  in 
ilie  promises  of  God.     And  whereas  these  previous 
^leclarations   are  made   by  the  godfathers  and  god- 
mothers at  the   public   baptism  of  infants,  the  same 
previous  declarations  are  made  by  tlse  parties  them- 
selves, in  tlie  ministration  of  baptism  to  such  as  are 
jof  riper  years.     In  the  exhortation  also  to  this  ser- 
vice, the  Priest  says,  *'  Doubt  ye  not,  therefore,  but 
earnestly    believe,   that  he   will  favourably   receive 
these  present  persons,  truly  repenting^  and  coming  to 
him  by  faitJi.^'     Repentance  and  Faith,  therefore, 


LECTURE  XIX.  p 

expressed  either  by  ourselves  or  by  our  sureties,  are 
the  causes  which  operate  in  producing  that  spiritual 
grace,  which  is  conferred  at  baptism.  Thus  St.  Paul, 
when  he  spake  of  washing  away  sins  at  baptism, 
spake  at  the  same  time  of  *^  calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord.'^  But  how  under  such  circumstances  can 
we  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  except  by  profes- 
sions of  repentance  and  faith  ?*  In  like  manner, 
when  we  receive  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
it  is  not  the  bread,  which  we  eat,  nor  the  wine  which 
we  drink,  any  more  than  the  tvater,  which  is  used  in 
baptism,  which  confers  the  spiritual  grace,  but  the 
repentance  and  faiths  which  accompany  the  eating  of 
the  bread  and  the  drinking  of  the  wine.  Our  Articles 
are  very  clear  and  precise  on  this  subject.      The 

*  If  it  be  objected,  that  in  t!ie  short  service,  which  our  Church 
has  provided  for  the  jwivate  baptism  of  infants,  there  are  no 
expressions  ot  faith  and  repentance,  though  by  our  Catechism  they 
are  required  of  persons  to  be  baptized,  we  may  answer,  that  we 
seldom  meet  with  a  general  rule,  without  some  exception  for  ex- 
treme caseb.  In  the  words  of  the  rubric,  this  short  service  is  to 
be  used  only  "  when  need  shall  compel :"'  and  if  the  child  lives^  it 
must  afterwards  be  brought  to  Church,  when  the  same  professions 
of  repentance  and  faith  are  made  as  in  the  other  services.  These 
professions  therefore  are  only  deferred,  and  deferred  from  the 
urgency  of  the  case.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  child  dies^  we  trust 
that  the  Almighty  takes  the  will  for  the  deed,  since  the  intended 
professions  of  faith  and  repentance  would  have  been  carried  into 
eifect,  if  the  opportunity  had  been  afforded  by  the  life  of  the  child 
being  spared = 

2 


10  LECTURE  XIX. 

twenty -eighth  Article  says,  "  To  such   as  rightly, 
worthily,  and  with  faith  receive  the  same,  the  Bread, 
which   we  break,  is    a   partaking   of  the   Body   of 
Christ :  and  likewise  the  cup  of  blessing  is  a  partak- 
ing of  the  blood  of  Christ."    On  the  other  hand,  says 
the  twenty-ninth  Article,  *^  The  wicked,  and  such  as 
be  void  of  a  lively  faith,  although  they  do  carnally 
and  visibly  press   with  their  teeth  the  Sacrament  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  yet  in  no  wise  are  they 
<partalcers  of  Christ."     The  relation  therefore  both  of 
the  outward  sign  to  the  inward  grace,  and  of  the  in- 
ward grace  to  that  which  is  required  to  obtain  it,  is 
so  distinctly  marked,  that  one  should  hardly  suppose 
it  possible  to  mistake  the  meaning  of  our  Articles. 
There  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  there  is  an  external 
token  of  it :  for  every  act  of  the  mind  must  have  some 
external  token.     But  neither  here  nor  in  other  cases 
does  the  real  virtue  of  the  act  consist  in  the  token. 
Each  of  our  Sacraments  has  lisown  external  token :  but 
in  hoth  of  them  are  the  acts  of  the  mind  acknowledg- 
ments of  Repentance  and  Faith.     Unless  therefore  it 
is  superstition  to  believe,  that  the  grace  of  God  ac- 
companies Repentance  and  Faith,  there  is  no  super- 
stition in  believing,  that  the  grace  of  God  accompanies, 
as  well  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  as  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  since  that  'peculiar  grace, 
which  is  called  Regeneration,  is  a  grace,  wliich  is 
conferred  on  us  only  once  in  our   lives,  (for  it  is  a 
different  thing  from  renovation)  the  Sacrament,  which 


I 


LECTURE  XIX.  11 

we  receive  only  once  in  our  lives,  and  which   then 
admits  us  to  the  Christian  Covenant,  woul^  appear 
k)  be  the  appointed  means  of  conferring  that  grace^ 
even  if  St.  Paul  had  not  declared  it.      But  that  St. 
Paul  has  declared  it  cannot  admit   a  doubt.     Unless 
Regeneration  had  helonged  to  Baptism,  the   Apostle 
would  not  have  called  the  act  of  Baptism  *^  the  wash- 
ing of  Regeneration,"  or  the  laver  of  Baptism  "the 
laver  of  Regeneration."     For  there  is  nothing  beside 
Baptism,  to  which  the  term  "  washing,"  or  rather  the 
term  "  laver,"  which  is  a  better  translation,  can  pos- 
sibly apply.     It  is  strange  therefore,  that  such  efforts 
should  now   be   made  to  detach  Regeneration  from 
Baptism  :  though   we  must  acknowledge,  that  in  the 
estimation  of  those,  who  make  such  efforts,  the  sepa- 
ration is  highly  useful.  For,  as  soon  as  Regeneration 
is  detached  from  Baptism,   it   may  be  employed  on 
other  occasions  :  it  may  be  made  the  instrument  of 
conversion  at  a  later  age  :  and  thus  the  pangs  of  the 
new  birth  may  become  tokens   of  admission  to  that 
holy  state,  which  the  converts  are  taught  to  expect  in 
vain  from  a  Sacrament  deprived  of  its  spiritual  grace. 
But  strange  as  this  doctrine  may  appear,  it  is  yet 
more  strange,  that  men  should  detach  Regeneration 
from  Baptism,  and  still  pretend  to  be   Churchmen, 
There  is  no  possible  artifice,  by  which  the  words  of 
our  baptismal  services  can  be  distorted  from  their  real 
meaning.      In  the  words  of  our  Public  Baptism  of 
Infants,  the  Priest  thus  addresses  the  congregation, 


12  LECTURE  XIX. 

immediately  after  the  baptism  is  completed.  "  Seeing 
now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  by 
baptism  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  Church,''  &c.  And  the  thanksgiving,  which 
immediately  follows,  begins  thus,  "  We  yield  thee 
hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleas- 
ed thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit." 
Unless  therefore  the  expression  *^  it  hath  pleased  God 
to  regenerate  "  is  synonymous  with  the  expression 
"  it  shall  please  God  to  regenerate,"  unless  the  past 
is  the  same  with  the  future,  it  is  impossible  to  deny, 
that  they,  who  wilfully  and  deliberately  detach  re- 
generation from  baptism,  impugn  essentially  the  doc- 
trine of  our  established  Church,  inasmuch  as  they 
impugn  it  in  one  of  our  Hohf  Sacraments.* 

Having  thus  illustrated  two  very  remarkable  types 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  one  applying  to  the  Sacra- 

*  As  it  is  impossible  to  explain  awaj  the  strong  expressions, 
which  have  been  here  quoted,  an  attempt  of  another  kind  has  been 
made,  namely,  to  shew  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  a  prayer  in 
the  former  part  of  the  service,  which  contains  the  following  passage: 
«  We  call  upon  thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming  to  thy  Holy 
Baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regenera- 
tion.*' But  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  believing,  that  what  was 
only  a  subject  of  prayer  at  the  commencement  of  the  service,  was 
a  grace  already  obtained  at  the  close  of  the  service.  The  grace 
conferred  at  Baptism  is  the  effect  of  Repentance  and  Faith  :  and 
the  professions  of  Repentance  and  Faith  are  made  after  the  prayer 
for  regeneration,  but  &e/ore  the  declaration,  that  the  child  is  regen- 
erate. The  prayer  therefore,  and  tiie  declaration,  arc  ferfecthj 
consistent. 


LECTURE  XIX.  IS 

merit  of  Baptism,  the  other  to  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord^s  Supper,  we  may  now  proceed  with  that  anal- 
ogy, which  subsists  between  the  interpretation  of  types 
and  the  interpretation  of  prophecy.  Whatever  be  the 
mode,  in  which  a  prophecy  is  conveyed,  whether  it  be 
conveyed  by  words,  or  conveyed  by  things,  the  con- 
nexion between  that  conveyance,  and  the  event  in 
which  we  seek  the  completion,  must  be  clearly  estab- 
lished, or  the  very  existence  of  the  prophecy  will 
remain  unproved.  But  it  appears  from  the  arguments 
already  used,  that  an  event  in  the  history  of  the  Jews, 
or  a  ceremony  performed  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  typical,  and  consequently  not 
as  prophetical  of  any  rite  performed  in  the  Church 
of  Christ,  unless  it  was  determined  by  the  Deity,  that 
such  event  should  happen,  or  such  ceremony  be  in- 
stituted, with  a  view  to  what  the  Deity  foresaw  would 
take  place  in  later  ages.  Where  no  such  connexion 
exists  between  a  former  event  or  ceremony,  and  a 
later  event  or  ceremony,  the  former  can  in  no  wise  be 
considered  as  typical,  and  consequently  not  as  pro- 
phetical, of  the  latter.  The  histories  of  Greece  and 
Rome  afford  various  examples  of  events  at  one  period, 
which  resemble  the  events  of  another  period.  But  we 
do  not  therefore  regard  them  as  types  and  antitypes. 
And  ivhy  do  we  not  regard  them  as  such  ?  Because 
we  perceive  no  connexion  between  them  :  because  we 
perceive  nothing  more  than,  that  the  things  are  simi- 
lar:  because  we  have  no  evidence,  that  in  the  general 


14  LECTURE  XIX. 

scheme  of  Divine  Providence,  the  one  was  intended 
to  represent  the  other.  This  evidence  can  be  aiforded 
only  by  revelation  :  and  therefore  we  never  seek  for 
types  and  antitypes  except  in  the  Sacred  Writings. 
But  then,  for  this  very  reason  we  must  make  the  Sa- 
cred Writings  the  basis,  and  the  sole  basis,  on  which 
we  build  our  theories  of  types,  and  typical  prophecy. 
We  have  therefore  no  warrant  to  conclude,  that  the 
events  or  ceremonies  of  one  period  were  designed  by 
the  Deity  to  be  typical,  and  therefore  prophetical,  of 
the  events  or  ceremonies  of  another  period,  unless  (as 
in  the  two  examples  which  I  selected  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  types)  Revelation  itself  has  declared  t'hem  to 
be  such. 

It  has  indeed  been  objected  by  the  advocates  of  a 
more  extensive  scheme,  that  an  explanation  of  types 
in  the  Bible  itself  is  in  general  not  to  be  expected. 
It  has  been  urged  that  their  very  nature  requires  06- 
scurity  and  concealment :  and  consequently  that  an 
explanation  of  them  would  be  inconsistent  with  their 
original  design.  But  the  explanation,  for  which  we 
must  have  recourse  to  Scripture,  is  not  an  explanation 
to  be  sought  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  an  explanation 
accompanying  the  type.  It  is  an  explanation  to  be 
sought  in  the  JSTew  Testament,  or  an  explanation  ac- 
companying the  antitype.  That  such  explanations, 
in  various  instances,  are  given  in  the  New  Testament, 
no  one  can  deny.  Who,  for  instance,  would  deny 
that  the  sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb  is  declared  in 


LECTURE  XIX.  15 

the  New  Testament  to  be  a  prefiguration  ot  the  death 
of  Christ.  Aud  if  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  explain 
one  type,  where  could  be  the  expediency,  or  the  mor- 
al fitness,  of  withholding  the  explanation  of  others  ? 
Must  not  therefore  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  the  case  of  any  supposed  type,  be  an  argument 
against  the  existence  of  that  type?  If  it  was  agreea- 
ble to  the  design  of  typical  representation,  that  they, 
to  whom  the  type  was  originally  given,  should  re- 
main ignorant  of  its  real  tendency,  or  of  the  thing, 
which  it  was  meant  to  prefigure,  it  must  have  been 
agreeable  to  the  same  design,  that,  as  soon  as  the 
prefigured  antitype  had  taken  place,  its  relation  to  the 
type  should  be  clearly  revealed.  The  observance  of 
a  type  is  superseded  by  the  accomplishment  of  the 
antitype.  It  is  necessary  therefore  that  we  should 
know  the  exact  period  of  that  accomplishment :  or  we 
shall  know  not  the  period,  when  the  observance  of  the 
type  should  cease.  AVhatever  advantage  therefore 
the  Jews  might  have  derived  from  their  remaining  in 
ignorance,  that  certain  ceremonies  performed  in  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  were  only  shadows  of  better 
things  to  come,  yet  when  those  better  things  were 
come,  it  was  of  the  highest  importance,  that  the  mys- 
tery should  be  removed,  and  the  types  explained. 
But  revelation  alone  could  give  the  explanation.  For 
that  one  thing  was  designed  to  prefigure  another,  can 
be  known  only  to  Him  who  designed  it,  and  to  those, 
to  whom  he  has  vouchsafed  to  reveal  it. 


16  LECTURE  XIX. 

When  we  proceed  to  the  interpretation  of  prophe- 
cies delivered  in  icords,  we  shall  find  no  less  caution 
necessary,  than  in  the  interpretation  of  prophecies 
delivered  by  things.  We  must  not  imagine  that  in 
every  instance,  where  the  words  of  a  Hebrew  prophet 
appear  to  bear  some  resemblance ,  or  to  be  applicable 
to  events  which  are  passing  in  the  present  age,  they 
were  therefore  designed  to  be  predictions  t)f  those 
events.  If  we  argue  from  mere  similarity,  without 
taking  other  things  into  consideration,  the  consequence 
will  be,  that  wherever  the  meaning  of  a  passage  is  in 
itself  sufficiently  general  to  admit  of  more  applications 
than  one,  various  interpreters  will  compare  it  with 
various  events,  and  they  will  all  declare,  that  the 
passage  is  a  prophecy  of  that  particular  event,  to  which 
they  themselves  apply  it.  Indeed  we  know  by  expe- 
rience, that  passages  in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  have  been  applied  to  as  many  different 
events,  as  the  interpreters  themselves  are  numerous. 
Yet  each  interpreter  is  confident  of  his  own  explana- 
tion :  and  is  persuaded  that  all  other  interpreters  are 
mistaken.  In  this  manner  is  the  sure  word  of  proph- 
ecy, as  St.  Peter  very  justly  calls  it,  exposed  to  sus- 
picion, on  the  part  of  those,  who  are  inclined  to  ques- 
tion the  truth  of  our  holy  religion. 

Kut  though  the  difficulties  attending  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Hebrew  prophets  are  confessedly  great, 
those  difficulties  are  not  insurmountable.  And  if  the 
interpretation  of  prophecy  is  really  subject  to  deter- 


LECTURE  XIX.  IT 

minate  rules^  the  conclusions,  to  which  such  rules 
must  eventually  lead,  will  be  no  less  certain,  when 
those  ditficuUics  are  overcome,  than  if  they  had  never 
existed.  The  sole  difference  consists  in  the  labour, 
in  the  skill,  and  in  the  time,  which  are  wanted  in  the 
one  case,  but  not  in  the  other.  If  it  be  objected  there- 
fore, that  the  sacred  oracles  are  ambiguous,  because 
the  explanations  of  them  are  various,  we  may  confi- 
dently answer,  that  the  fault  is  in  the  interpretation, 
and  not  in  the  text.  It  is  no  wonder  that  in  the  ex- 
planations of  the  Hebrew  prophets  we  should  discov- 
er inconsistency,  when  an  office,  for  which  so  many 
qualifications  are  required,  is  undertaken  by  men,  in 
whom  those  qualifications  are  wanting  altogether. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  into  the 
true  spirit  of  Hebrew  prophecy,  without  a  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  language.  The  style  of  history  is  for 
the  most  part,  so  plain  and  simple,  that  a  narrative 
of  events  delivered  in  one  language  may  be  adequate- 
ly expressed  in  otJier  languages.  The  same  obser- 
vation applies  to  the  didactic  parts  of  Scripture  :  the 
rules,  which  are  necessary  for  the  guidance  of  our  own 
conduct,  requiring  of  themselves  so  much  plainness 
and  perspicuity,  as  to  be  equally  expressible  in  every 
language.  But  the  fvojihctic  style  of  Scripture  is  of 
so  peculiar  a  kind,  that  it  is  always  difficult,  and 
sometimes  impossible  to  express  in  English  what 
is  expressed  in  Hebrew.  Even  in  poetry,  which  is 
more  easily  rendered  than  prophecy,   it  is  no  easy 


18  LECTURE  XIX. 

task  to  transfer  the  spirit  of  the  original  into  the  words 
of  a  translation.  Words  in  one  language  may  have 
k  literal  correspondence  to  words  in  another  lan- 
guage ;  while  they  are  incapable  of  being  employed 
in  the  same  figurative  sense.  The  usage  of  the  two 
languages,  which  alone  can  determine  the  meaning 
of  words,  may  be  alike  in  one  respect  and  different 
in  another.  But,  if  the  words  of  a  translation  con- 
vey only  a  literal  sense,  where  the  words  of  the  orig- 
inal convey  a  figurative  sense,  the  words  of  the  au- 
thor and  the  words  of  the  translator  will  convey  two 
different  senses.  Hence  the  same  prophecy  may  be 
differently  understood,  according  as  it  is  interpreted 
from  the  words  of  the  original,  or  interpreted  from 
the  words  of  a  translation.  Now  the  style  of  proph- 
ecy would  in  any  language  be  more  figurative  than 
that  of  history  :  and  in  Hebrew  prophecy  it  is  so 
much  the  moi'e  figurative,  as  the  oriental  languages 
themselves  more  abound  in  metaphor,  than  the  lan- 
guages of  Greece  and  Rome. 

Another  cause  of  difference  in  the  interpretation 
of  Hebrew  prophecy  is,  that  while  one  interpreter 
considers  the  situation  and  circumstances  of  the 
writer  whose  works  he  explains,  another  interpreter 
expounds  without  the  least  regard  for  what  is  neces- 
sary to  be  known,  in  order  to  discover  his  author's 
meaning.  Hebrew  writers,  who  lived  at  different, 
periods,  from  five  hundred  to  fifteen  hundred  years 
before  the  birth  of  Christ,  arc  all  viewed  in  the  self- 


LECTURE  XIX.  19 

same  light  :  and  the  light,  in  which  they  are  thus 
viewed,  is  moreover  the  light,  in  which  the  language 
of  the  translator  would  be  viewed,  if  that  language 
were  the  language  of  the  author.  Hence  the  notions, 
which  the  Hebrew  writers  affixed  to  their  own  words, 
are  exchanged  for  notions,  which  the  interpreter,  dif- 
ferently circumstanced,  affixes  to  the  words  of  a 
translation.  Again,  while  one  interpreter  investi- 
gates the  words  of  his  author  with  grammatical  pre- 
cision, and  attempts  only  to  discover  what  the  words 
themselves  convey,  another  interpreter,  either  re- 
gardless or  incapable  of  grammatical  analysis,  em- 
ploys his  ingenuity  in  torturing  the  words  of  his  au- 
thor, or  rather  of  his  author's  translator,  till  he  has 
brought  them  to  speak,  what  he  had  previously  de- 
termined, that  they  should  speak. 

Since  then  so  many  causes  are  incessantly  ope- 
rating to  produce  variety  in  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy,  we  need  not  wonder,  if  the  eftects  corres- 
pond with  the  causes.  But  the  very  consideration  of 
those  causes  is  sufficient  to  remove  the  charge  of  am- 
biguity from  the  sacred  text,  and  to  fix  it,  where  it 
belongs,  in  the  interpretations  alone. 


LECTURE  XX. 


JlIaving  examined  the  causes,  which  produce  the 
variety  observable  in  the  expositions  of  Hebrew 
prophecy,  we  might  in  the  next  place  inquire,  wheth- 
er it  is  not  possible  to  assign  such  rules  of  interpre- 
tation, as  may  be  the  means  of  greater  harmony  in 
our  commentaries  on  that  subject.  But  the  general 
rules  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  which  have 
been  fully  explained  in  former  Lectures,  are  appli- 
cable, as  well  to  the  prophetic  books,  as  to  other 
parts  of  the  sacred  volume.  For  in  every  instance 
we  must  consider  the  words,  which  we  interpret,  as 
signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was  thought  by  the  au- 
thor. 

There  is  indeed  one  distinction  to  be  made  be- 
tween the  interpretation  of  prophecy,  and  the  inter- 
pretation of  history ;  a  distinction  founded  on  a  dif- 
ference of  inspiration.  The  inspiration  of  prophecy 
must  be  different  from  that,  which  would  at  least  be 
sufficient  for  the  inspiration  of  history.  If  an  histo- 
rian  records  events,  which  have  eitlicr  come  within 
his  own  knowledge,  or  of  which  he  has  the  means  of 


lecturf:  XX.  21 

obtaining  correct  information,  he  cannot  want  that 
kind  of  inspiration,  which  is  called  an  inspiration  of 
suggestion.  And  exemption  from  error  is  in  such 
cases  sufficiently  secured,  if  the  Holy  Spirit,  while 
it  leaves  the  historian  to  act  for  himself,  as  long  as 
the  record  is  true,  is  ready  to  interpose,  whenever 
there  is  danger  of  a  deviation  from  the  truth.  But 
widely  different  is  the  case  of  prophecy.  An  inspi- 
ration of  suggestion  is  there  absolutely  necessary  : 
for  it  lies  not  within  the  power  of  unassisted  man  to 
discover  what  persons  will  be  born,  or  what  transac- 
tions will  take  place,  after  a  lapse  of  some  hundreds 
of  years.  It  is  true,  that  our  own  reason  enables  us 
to  argue  from  the  past  to  the  future.  A  comparison 
of  causes  with  their  consequences  at  a  former  period 
may  warrant  the  conclusion,  that  a  recurrence  of  the 
same  causes  will  probably  lead  to  a  recurrence  of 
the  same  consequences.  And  when  those  causes  ac- 
tually have  recurred,  we  may  predict  with  some  prob- 
ability, that  the  time  is  not  far  distant,  when  also  the 
consequences  will  recur.  If,  for  instance,  we  com- 
pare the  present  situation  of  our  Church  with  its  sit- 
uation at  a  former  period,  we  must  have  our  appre- 
hensions, and  perhaps  our  forebodings.  But  such 
forebodings  are  very  different  from  that  knowledge,, 
which  enables  men  to  foresee,  not  merely  the  conse- 
quences of  causes  noic  operating,  but  such  distant 
events,  as  are  wholly  unconnected  with  any  thing, 
which  is  passing  in  the  present  age,     AVhen,  for  in- 


22  LECTURE  XX. 

stance,  Isaiali  foretold  the  coining  of  Christ,  he  fore- 
told not  only  a  very  distant  event,  but  an  event,  to 
which  he  could  not  possibly  argue  from  the  state  of 
the  Jews,  at  tlie  time,  when  he  wrote.  A  foreknowl- 
edge of  such  events  can  be  obtained  by  no  other 
means,  than  by  an  immediate  communication  from 
God  himself. 

Let  us  apply  then  the  principles  of  interpretation, 
as  explained  in  a  former  Lecture,  to  the  two  differ- 
ent cases  of  history  and  prophecy.  When  we  inter- 
pret the  words  of  a  sacred  historian,  and  consider 
those  words,  as  signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was 
thought  by  the  author,  we  may  regard  the  historian 
himself  as  the  author.  But  when  M^e  interpret  a 
prophecijf  we  must  distinguish  between  the  author^ 
and  the  icriter.  For  when  the  knowledge  of  the 
writer  is  communicated  to  him  by  an  immediate  sug- 
gestion of  the  Ilolij  Spirit,  we  must  consider  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  as  the  author  of  that  knowledge,  which  the 
prophet,  as  a  writer,  communicates  to  the  reader. 
But  then  this  knowledge  might  be  communicated  to 
the  prophet  in  two  different  ways,  either  of  which 
lay  within  the  reach  of  Almighty  power.  The  un- 
derstanding of  the  prophet  might  be  opened  in  a  su- 
pernatural manner,  so  as  to  give  him  an  insight  into 
future  events,  while  the  record  of  those  events,  or  the 
mode  of  committing  them  to  icriting,  was  left  entire- 
ly to  himself.  In  this  case,  though  the  prophecy  has 
the  Holy  Spirit  for  its  author,  yet  the  words  of  the 


i 


LECTUU1-:  XX.  23 

prophecy  are  the  words  of  the  projihet.  And  if  the 
prophet  was  the  author  of  the  words,  those  words 
must  be  signs  to  us  of  what  was  tliought  by  the 
prophet.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ivords  also,  as  well 
as  the  things  signijied  by  the  words,  might  have  beea 
communicated  to  the  prophet.  In  this  case  he  was 
the  mere  instrument  of  communication  to  the  reader  ; 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  must  then  be  regarded  as  the 
author,  as  well  with  respect  to  the  icords,  as  with 
respect  to  the  things.  But  whether  the  words  were 
chosen  by  the  prophet,  or  chosen  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  princij)le,  on  which  they  were  chosen,  must  in 
either  case  have  been  the  same.  In  either  case,  the 
choice  of  them  must  have  depended  on  the  connex- 
ion, which  the  usage  of  ihe  Hebrew  language  had  es- 
tablished between  words,  and  the  things  signijied  by 
those  words.  If  they  had  not  been  so  chosen,  they 
could  not  have  been  signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was 
thought  by  the  author,  whether  we  refer  them  to  the 
prophet,  or  refer  them  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Whoever 
was  the  author  of  a  passage,  which  we  propose  to  in- 
terpret, we  must  conclude,  that  he  u$ed  his  words  in, 
such  senses,  as  he  supposed  would  be  ascribed  to 
them  by  his  readers.  For  if  he  used  them  in  other 
senses,  he  v/ould  not  inform,  but  mislead.  Conse- 
quently, whether  we  interpret  prophecy,  on  the  sup- 
position that  the  words  were  chosen  by  the  prophet, 
or  interpret  prophecy  on  the  supposition  that  the 
words  were  chosen  by  the  Holy  Spirit^  we  must  on 


24  LECTURE  XX. 

either  supposition  apply  the  same  rules  of  interpre- 
tation. 

After  these  general  remarks  on  the  interpretation 
6f  prophecy,  let  us  proceed  to  the  jiarticular  consid- 
eration of  the  prophecies,  which  relate  to  the  Messi- 
ah. Various  reasons  may  he  assigned  for  selecting 
these  prophecies,  as  suhjects  of  our  special  attention. 
In  the  first  place,  they  arc  more  im'portant,  than  all 
other  prophecies  put  together.  Whether  we  can  dis- 
cover in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  a  des- 
cription of  the  events  which  are  passing  in  the  pres- 
ent age,  is  a  question  of  little  moment.  But  the 
prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah  are  of  such  im- 
portance, that  they  affect  the  very  truth  of  our  reli- 
gion. And  in  the  next  place,  an  inquiry  into  those 
propliecies  includes  the  consideration  of  almost  every 
thing  which  relates  to  prophecy  in  general.  It  in- 
cludes the  questions  o^  'primary  senses,  and  seconda- 
ry senses,  of  prophecy.  It  includes  also  the  ques- 
tion, which  has  been  so  much  agitated  under  the 
name  of  accommodation.  When  we  examine  tliere- 
fore  the  prophecies,  which  relate  to  the  Messiah,  we 
examine  every  question  of  real  interest  in  the  subject 
of  prophecy  at  large. 

Let  us  begin  with  an  inquiry  into  that  connexion^ 
which  subsists  between  the  truth  of  our  religion,  and 
the  prophecies  relating  to  the  Messiah.  It  is  evident 
from  the  writings  of  tlie  New  Testament,  that  both 
our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  appealed  to  the  proph- 


LECTURE  XX,  25 

ecies  of  tl^e  Old  Testament,  as  affording  a  principal 
proof  of  his  divine  mission.  In  a  conversation  with 
the  Jews  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  relating  to 
this  very  sul)ject,  our  Saviour  directed  them  to 
"  search  the  Scriptures "  (John  v.  39):  and  then 
he  added,  "  they  are  they,  which  testify  of  me.'' 
Now  the  writings  of  the  JVeM?  Testament  were  not 
then  in  existence  :  consequently  our  Saviour  could 
have  meant  only  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  therefore  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. When  he  addressed  the  twelve  Apostles  on 
his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  (Luke  xviii.  31.)  he 
said,  '^  Behold,  we  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  all  things, 
that  are  vk'ritten  by  the  prophets  concerning  the  Son 
of  man,  shall  he  accomplished."  When  he  shewed 
himself,  after  his  resurrection,  to  the  two  disciples, 
who  were  journeying  to  Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  25.)  he 
said  to  them,  "  0  fools,  and  slow  of  heart,  to  believe 
all  that  the  prophets  have  spoken  !  Ought  not  Christ 
to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his 
glory  ?  And  beginning  at  Aloses  and  all  the  prophets, 
he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the 
things  concerning  himself."  When  he  afterwards 
appeared  in  Jerusalem  to  the  eleven  Apostles,  he  ad- 
dressed them  in  a  similar  manner,  (Luke  xxiv.  44.) 
"These  are  the  words,  which  I  spake  unto  you, 
while  1  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be 
fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 


-:i>  LECTURE  XX. 

and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  concerning 
me/' 

The  same  appeal,  which  was  made  to  the  prophe- 
cies of  the  Old  Testament  by  Christ  himself,  in  proof 
of  his  divine  mission,  was  made  also  by  the  Apostles 
of  Christ.     When  Philip^  after  his  call  to  the  Apos- 
tleship,   met  with  Nathaniel,  he   said,  (John  i.  45.) 
^»  We  have  found  Him,  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law, 
and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the 
son  of  Joseph."  When  St.  Peter  addressed  the  Jews 
after  the  miracle  performed  in  the  temple  by  himself 
and  St.  John,  he  reminded  them  (Acts  iii.  18.)  how 
"those  things,  which  God  before  had  shewed  by  the 
mouth  of  all   his  prophets,  that  Christ  should  suffer, 
he  hath  so  fiiljilledJ' — "  And  he  shall  send  Jesus 
Christ,  which  before  was   preached  unto  you,  whom 
the  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  the  restitu- 
tion of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the 
mouth  of  all  his  prophets,  since  the  world  began.'' 
Then  observing  that  Moses  had  prophesied  of  Christ, 
he  concluded  by  saying,  ^»  Yea,  and  all  the  prophets, 
from  Samuel,  and  those  that  follow  after,  as  many  as 
have  spoken,  have  likewise  foretold  of  these  daysJ'^ 
Again,  in  his  address  to  Cornelius,  St.  Peter  declared 
of  Christ,  (Acts  x.  43.)  "To  Him  give  all  the  proph- 
ets ivitnesSf  that  through   his  name   whosoever  be- 
lieveth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."    And 
in  the  first  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle  (v.  10.)  speak- 
ing of  the  salvation  wrought  by  Jesus  Christ,  he  said. 


LECTURE  XX.  27 

"  Of  which  salvation  the  prophets  have  inquired  and 
searched  diligently,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that 
should  come  unto  you  :  searching  what,  or  what 
manner  of  time,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  which  was*  in 
them,  did  tfstify,  when  it  testijied  beforehand  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory,  that  should  fol- 
low." 

The  appeals  of  St.  Paul  to  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  bearing  witness  to  the  coming  of 
Christ,  are  still  more  numerous,  than  those  of  St.  Peter. 
At  the  very  beginning  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
he  calls  himself  ^^  an  Apostle,  separated  unto  the  gos- 
pel of  God,  which  he  had  promised  afore  by  his 
prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  concerning  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.''     In  the  third  chapter  of  the 
same  Epistle,  he  speaks  of  the  righteousness  of  God, 
manifested   by  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  "  witnessed  by 
the  law  and  the  prophets.''     And  at  the  close  of  the 
same  Epistle  he  declares  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus 
Christ,  that  it  "  now  is  made  manifest,  and   by  the 
Scriptures  of  the  prophets,  according  to  the  command- 
ment of  the  everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all  na- 
tions for  the  obedience  of  faith."  In  his  second  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  declares,  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  corner-stone  of  that  building,  which 
is  founded  on  "  the  Apostles  and  Prophets.^^    When 
he  was  accused  before  Felix,  he  replied,  (Acts  xxiv. 
14.)  "After  the  way,  which  they  call  heresy,  so  wor- 
ship I  the  God  of  my  fathers,  believing  all  things, 


28  LECTURE  XX. 

which  are  written  in  the  law,  and  in  the  jjrophets.^^ 
And  when  he  pleaded  before  Agrippa,  against  the 
same  accusation  of  the  Jews,  he  said,  (Acts  xxvi,  gS, 
28.)  '^'  Having  therefore  obtained  help  from  God,  I 
continue  unto  this  day,  witnessing  both  to  small  and 
to  great,  saying  none  other  things,  than  those,  which 
the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come ;  that 
Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  he  should  be  the  first, 
that  should  rise  from  the  dead,  and  should  shew  light 
unto  the  people,  and  to  the  Gentiles."  Lastly,  when 
he  was  come  to  Rome,  and  had  assembled  before  him 
the  chief  of  the  Jews  in  that  city,  ^'  he  expounded  and 
testified  of  tlie  kingdom  of  God,  persuading  them 
concerning  Jesus,  both  out  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
out  of  the  prophets." 

Nor  are  the  passages,  already  quoted,  the  only 
passages  in  the  New  Testament,  in  which  an  appeal 
is  made  to  the  prophets,  as  testifying  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Evangelist  St.  Mark  begins  his  Gospel  with  an 
appeal  of  this  description.  "  The  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten in  the  prophets.  Behold  I  send  my  messenger 
before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way  before 
thee."  And  Zacharias,  the  father  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, being  "  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (Luke  i.  67.) 
pronounced  the  following  blessing  at  the  circumcision 
of  his  son,  who  was  destined  to  be  the  forerunner  of 
the  Messiah.  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ; 
ibr  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people,  aud  hath 


LECTURE  XX.  29 

raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his 
servant  David,  as  he  spake  hy  the  mouth  of  his  holy- 
prophets,  which  have  been  since  the  world  began." 

From  these  repeated  appeals  to  the  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament,  it  appears,  that  tlieir  testimony  is 
represented  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  principal  ar- 
£;ument  for  the  divine  mission  of  Christ.  Search  the 
Scriptures,  says  our  Saviour,  for  '^  they  testify  of  me." 
In  me,  says  our  Saviour,  are  the  prophecies  ''fuljil- 
led.'^  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  says  St.  Philip,  is  the  per- 
son, of  whom  the  prophets  did  write.  To  Jesus 
Christ,  says  St.  Peter,  gave  the  projihets  witness. 
The  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  says  St.  Paul,  was 
made  manifest  hy  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets.  The 
fact,  therefore,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  is  c\i- 
denily  founded  on  the  predictions  of  his  coming  in  the 
writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets. 

It  is  true,  that  our  Saviour  appealed  also  to  his 
miracles,  in  proof  of  his  divine  mission.  When  John 
the  I3aptist  heard  in  prison  the  works  of  Christ,  ho 
sent  two  of  his  disciples,  and  said  unto  him  (Mattb. 
xi.  3.)  **  Art  thou  He,  which  should  come,  or  do  we 
look  for  another."  Jesus  answered,  and  said  unto 
them,  '^  Go,  and  shew  John  again  the  things,  w  hich 
ye  do  hear  and  see.  The  blind  receive  their  sight ; 
the  lame  walk ;  the  lepers  are  cleansed ;  the  deaf 
hear;  and  the  dead  are  raised  up."  Now  the  power 
of  working  miracles  affords  an  unquestionable  proof, 
that  the  person,  possessed  of  that  power,  has  authori- 


30  LECTURE  XX. 

ty  from  God.  To  perform  a  miracle  is  to  suspend  or 
counteract  ia  that  instance  the  general  laws  of  nature. 
And  these  are  laws,  which  no  one  but  the  author  of 
them  has  the  power  of  suspending,  or  counteracting.* 

*  We  must  distinguish  between  a  power  producing  effects  which 
are  really  preturtiatural,  and  "a  power  which  produces  effects 
which  might  seem  preternatural  to  those,  who  have  no  knowledge 
of  the  means."  In  Mechanics,  and  in  Optics,  experiments  may 
be  made,  which  to  those,  who  arc  unacquainted  with  the  principles, 
roust  appear  wonderful.  But  in  such  experiments,  wonderful  as 
they  may  appear  to  the  illiterate,  the  laws  of  nature  are  neitlier 
suspended  nor  counteracted.  On  the  contrary,  those  very  experi- 
ments are  the  results  of  the  laws  of  nature.  They  have  no  resem- 
blance therefore  to  a  miracle,  in  any  degree  whatever,  or  in  any 
sense  whatever.  In  our  Saviour's  miracles,  there  was  neither 
mechanical,  nor  optical,  nor  any  other  deception  ;  but  a  real  sus- 
pension of  the  laws  of  nature.  And  that  any  other  power,  than  the 
Mmighty  power,  which  both  made  those  laws,  and  governs  the 
world  by  them,  should  be  able  to  alter  the  constitution  and  course 
of  nature  by  a  suspension  of  those  laws,  is,  as  far  as  I  can  judge, 
absolutely  incredible.  The  Jews  indeed,  who  did  not  deny  the 
reality  of  our  Saviour's  miracles,  ascribed  them  to  the  operation  of 
evil  spirits  :  and  Celsus,  in  his  attack,  on  the  Christian  religion, 
ascribed  them  to  the  operation  of  magic.  The  Jewish  argument 
that  evil  spirits  can  work  miracles,  and  therefore  that  the  miracles 
of  our  Saviour  are  no  proof  of  bis  divine  authority,  was  revived 
in  the  former  part  of  the  last  century,  during  the  controversy  on 
the  argument  from  miracles.  And  even  a  late  Prelate  of  our  own 
Church,  whose  words  are  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  note,  baa 
very  incautiously  subscribed  to  the  Jewish  doctrine,  that  evil  spir- 
its have  the  power  of  working  miracles  :  a  doctrine  which  tends 
to  destroy  the  argument  from  miracles,  since  the  performance  o 
a  miracle,  if  it  does  not  in  i^sW/ imply  divine  authority,  cannot 


LECTURE  XX.  31 

When  our  Saviour  therefore  appealed  to  his  miracles, 
he  appealed  to  them  as  a  proof,  as  a  legitimate  proof, 
that  he  was  armed  with  divine  authority.  And  his 
miracles  alone  (independently  of  other  arguments, 
which  establish  his  own  true  Divinity)  would  be  suf- 
ficient to  prove,  as  Nicodemus  declared,  that  he  was 
"  a  teacher  sent  from  God/'  But  that  connexion, 
which  subsists  between  the  covenant  made  with  the 
Jews  through  Moses,  and  the  covenant  made  with  all 
mankind  through  Christ,  would  be  entirely  lost,  were 
it  not  for  the  intervention  of  the  prophecies  relating 
to  the  Messiah.  These  prophecies  form  the  link, 
which  connects  the  two  covenants.  By  these  proph- 
ecies are  we  enabled  to  comprehend  the  ichole  scheme 
of  Divine  Providence,  and  to  understand  in  what 
manner  it  was  gradually  unfolded  for  the  redemption 
of  mankind. 

That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  therefore  was  the  prom- 
ised Messiah,  is  a  fact,  which  we  must  be  able  to  es- 
tablish, or  we  shall  fail  of  establishing  that  compre- 
hensive scheme  of  Divine  Providence,  which  includes 
the  two  covenants  in  one  general  system.  And  we 
shall  otherwise  be  unable  to  account  for  those  repeat- 
possibly  do  so  by  any  accidental  circumstances,  whether  of  benev- 
olence or  of  any  otlier  attribute,  which  may  accompany  tlie  mira- 
cle. These  remarks  I  should  not  have  made  in  a  Lecture  relating 
to  jiroiihecy,  if  Uie  passage,  to  which  this  Note  refers,  had  not  been 
disputed  on  the  authority  of  Bishop  Horseley.  But  the  further 
consideration  of  this  question  must  be  deferred,  till  miracles  tiiera- 
selves  become  the  immediate  subjects  of  our  inquiry. 


3£  LECTURE   XX. 

ed  and  solemn  appeals  to  the  Hebrew  prophets,  on 
the  part,  both  of  Clirist,  and  his  Apostles.  Christ 
iiimseir  has  commanded  us  to  search  tiie  scriptures, 
that  we  may  know  how  they  testify  of  him.  We 
must  be  able  therefore  to  find  what  he  has  command- 
ed us  to  seek :  or  the  command  will  have  been  given 
in  vain.  His  Apostles  have  further  declared,  that  he 
is  the  person,  of  whom  the  prophets  did  write  ;  that 
he  is  the  person,  to  whom  the  prophets  gave  witness ; 
that  he  is  the  person,  whose  preaching  was  made 
manifest  by  the  prophets.  Unless  therefore  we  could 
shew  in  what  manner  the  prophets  did  testify  of 
Christ,  the  declarations,  that  they  did  so,  would 
serve  only  to  confound  us.  And  the  argument  for 
the  truth  of  our  religion,  which  we  now  derive  from 
prophecy,  would  weaken,  instead  of  confirming,  the 
argument  derived  from  miracles. 

The  Hebrew  prophets  therefore  must  manifestly 
have  borne  testimony  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  And 
this  testimony  must  have  been  so  decisive,  as  to  ad- 
mit of  no  ambiguity,  no  question,  whether  their  pre- 
dictions relate  to  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  not. 
There  must  be  prophecies  therefore  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  strictly,  literally,  and  directly  predict 
the  coming  of  our  Saviour.  There  must  be  some- 
thiug  more  than  passages,  which  may  be  accommo- 
dated (as  it  is  called)  to  his  life  and  character.  Pas- 
sages from  classic  authors  are  frequently  accommo- 
dated, or,  in  other  words,  applied  to  a  present  event, 


LECTURE  XX.  '      3S 

as  descriptive  of  that  event.  But  such  applications 
are  founded  on  a  mere  accidental  parity  of  circum- 
stances. In  such  cases,  there  is  no  previous  design 
on  the  part  of  the  quoted  author ;  there  is  no  con- 
nexion, foreseen  on  his  part,  between  the  quoted 
words  and  the  event,  to  which  they  are  applied. 
Though  they  are  descriptive  tlierefore  of  the  event, 
they  are  not  predictive  of  it. 

There  must  likewise  be  something  more  in  the 
writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  than  passages, 
which  predict  the  coming  of  Christ  in  a  sense,  which. 
\9  sometimes  called  remote,  at  other  times  secondary, 
at  other  times  mystical,  A  prophecy  which  relates 
to  our  Saviour  in  a  mere  remote  or  mystical  sense, 
can  hardly  come  within  that  description  of  prophecy, 
by  which  the  preaching  of  Christ  was  made  manifest. 
Nor  is  this  the  only  inconvenience,  to  which  we  are 
thus  exposed.  For,  if  we  adopt  the  notion,  that  the 
prophecies  in  general,  which  relate  to  the  Messiah, 
have  two  senses,  a  primary  and  a  secondary,  we  in- 
volve prophecy  itself  in  such  uncertainty,  as  to  de- 
prive it  of  the  character  ascribed  to  it  by  St.  Peter, 
who  called  it  the  sure  word  of  prophecy.  I  do  not 
mean  to  assert,  that  no  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  a  secondary  sense  :  but  1  mean  to  assert, 
and  shall  hereafter  endeavour  to  prove,  that  the  sys- 
tem, by  which  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
in  general  supplied  with  a  double  meaning,  is  unten- 
able.    Nor  do  I  mean  to  assert,  that  there  are  no 


34  LECTURE  XX. 

passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  quoted 
and  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to   events,   of 
which  they  neither  are,  nor  were  meant  to  be,  pro- 
phetic.    The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  at 
liberty  to  make  such  applications  of  passages  from 
Hebrew  authors,  as  we  make  ourselves  from   Greek 
and  Latin  authors.     But  if  we  extend  the  doctrine  of 
accommodation  even  to  those  passages,  where  the  sa- 
cred writers  have  both  declared  them  to  be  prophetic, 
and  have  employed  them  as  arguments  founded  on 
prophecy,  the  doctriue  of  accommodation,  so  under- 
stood, amounts  to  nothing  less,  than   a  rejection  of 
prophecy.     And  even  with  regard  to  secondary  sen- 
ses, if  it  were  true,   that  the  passages  in  general, 
which  have  been  quoted  in  the  New  Testament  as 
prophetic  of  Jesus  Christ,  were  prophetic  of  him,  not 
in    their  primary   and  literal  sense,  but  merely  in 
some  secondary  or  mystical  sense,  the  evidence  for 
our  religion,  which  is  founded  on  prophecy,  would 
be  much  less  satisfactory,  than  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve it. 

Under  such  circumstances,  it  becomes  a  matter  of 
the  highest  importance,  that  we  should  be  able  to 
produce  a  sufficient  number  of  passages  from  the  Old 
Testament,  which  predict  the  coming  of  Christ  in 
their  plain,  literal,  antl  proper  sense.  For  such  pas- 
sages alone  can  possess  that  decisively  prophetic 
character,  which  the  declarations  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  have  taught  us  to  expect.     It  shall  be  the 


LECTURE  XX.  '    S5 

business  therefore  of  the  next  Lecture  to  collect,  and 
explain,  such  passages.  And  when  we  are  satisfied 
about  the  existence  of  prophecies,  which  have  strict- 
ly and  literally  foretold  the  coming  of  Christ,  we  may 
safely  inquire  in  another  Lecture,  into  the  foundation 
of  secondary  senses. 


I 


LECTURE  XXL 


It  appears   from   the   preceding   Lecture,   that, 
"wheu,   agreeably   to  our   Saviour's    directions,    we 
search  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  for  pas- 
sages, which  tesl^ify  of  Christ,  for  passages  which 
in  the  words  of  St.  Peter  give  witness  to  Christ, 
and  by  which  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul  the  preach- 
ing of  Christ  is  made  manifest,  we  must  search  for 
passages,   which   relate    to  our   Saviour,  according 
to  their  plain,  literal,   and   proper   sense.      If  the 
words  of  a  Hebrew  prophet,  though  applicahle  to  a 
certain  event,  were  not  originally  written  with  refer- 
ence to  that  event,  they  cannot  be  considered  as  pro- 
phetic of  that  event.     No  passage  therefore  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  from   mere  accidental  simili- 
tude, may  be  accommodated  or  applied,  like  a  pas- 
sage from  a  classic  author,  can  be  included  among 
those  passages,  for  which  our  Saviour  commanded  us 
to  search,  as  for  passages,  by  which  he  was  testified. 
Nor  can  wc,  in  the  first  instance,  include  those  pas- 
sages, which,  though  they  do  relate  to  our  Saviour, 
relate  to  him  only  in  some  secondary  seuse.     For  we 
have  no  means  of  discovering^  that  a  prophecy  of  the 


LECTURE  XXI.  Sr 

Old  Testament  really  has  any  other  meaning,  than 
that,  which  the  words  themselves  convey  by  their 
own  proper  import,  except  where  some  other  mean- 
ing has  been  affixed  to  them,  either  by  Christ  or  by 
his  Apostles.  In  whatever  case  a  passage  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which,  according  to  its  plain  and  literal 
sense,  relates  to  some  earlier  event  in  the  Jewish 
history,  is  yet  applied,  either  by  Christ,  or  by  an 
Apostle  of  Christ,  to  what  happened  in  their  days, 
and  moreover  is  so  applied  as  to  indicate  that  the 
passage  is  jirophetic  ;  of  that  passage  we  must  con- 
clude, on  their  authority,  that,  beside  the  plain  or 
primary  sense,  it  has  also  a  remote  or  secondary 
sense.  But,  in  arguing  from  that  authority  to  the 
existence  of  a  secondary  sense,  we  must  be  careful 
not  to  argue  in  a  circle.  When  we  are  searching 
the  Scriptures  for  prophecies,  which  testify  o{  Christ, 
we  are  searching  for  that,  by  which  his  divine  au- 
thority is  to  be  established.  We  are  searching  for 
the  means  of  establishing  that  authority.  If  there- 
fore while  we  are  thus  searching,  we  have  recourse 
to  passages,  which  depend  on  that  authority,  to  pas- 
sages, of  which,  without  that  authority,  we  should 
not  even  knoiv,  that  they  were  prophetic  of  our  Sa- 
viour, we  previously  take  for  granted  the  thing, 
which  is  hereafter  to  be  proved.  We  argue  from 
premises,  which  are  only  so  far  valid,  as  the  infer- 
ence is  valid,  which  we  deduce  from  those  premises. 
In  other  words,  we  prove,  as  well  the  premises  by 


38  LECTURE  XXI. 

the  inference,  as  the  inference  by  the  premises.  Con- 
sequently, when  we  search  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  for  prophecies,  which  testify  of  Christ,  we 
must,  in  the^7's^  instance,  confine  our  search  to  those 
prophecies,  which  relate  to  him  in  a  strict  and  literal 
sense.  And  the  divine  authority  of  Christ  being 
thus  established,  in  conjunction  with  the  argument 
from  miracles,  we  may  then  with  consistency  consid- 
er the  prophecies,  which  relate  to  him  in  a  secondary 
sense. 

Such  then  being  the  importance  of  tlipse  prophe- 
cies, which  relate  to  the  Messiah  according  to  their 
strict  and  literal  sense,  I  trust  that  this  Lecture  will 
not  be  considered  as  tedious,  if,  instead  of  producing 
only  one  or  two  examples  by  way  of  illustration,  I 
extend  the  inquiry  to  many  such  examples.  But  to 
prevent  mistakes  about  the  meaning  of  any  passage, 
which  is  said  to  be  literally  prophetic  of  the  Messi- 
ah, it  is  necessary  to  define  the  term,  and  to  explain 
what  is  generally  understood  by  literal  interpreta- 
tion. When  we  consider  the  senses  of  single  w  ords, 
we  consider  whether  they  are  used  in  a  literal  sense, 
or  used  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  whether  they  are  used 
in  a  grammatical  sense,  or  used  in  a  tropical  sense  ; 
whether  they  are  used  in  their  primary  and  proper 
sense,  or  used  in  an  improper  or  acquired  sense. 
But  when  we  speak  of  the  literal  or  grammatical  in- 
terpretation of  a  whole  sentence,  we  do  not  thereby 
understand  that  every  single  word  in  that  sentence 


LECTURE  XXI.  39 

is  to  be  construed  according  to  its  proper,  literal,  and 
grammatical  sense.  Even  in  the  plainest  narratives 
we  often  meet  with  single  words,  which  are  used  in 
a  figurative  sense.  Yet  if  no  mystical,  or  allegorical 
meaning  is  affixed  to  those  narratives,  in  addition  to 
the  plain  facts,  which  the  words  themselves  were  in- 
tended to  record,  those  narratives  are  still  said  to 
be  taken  in  a  literal  sense.  In  like  manner,  if  a 
passage,  instead  of  recording  a  past  event,  is  the  rec- 
ord of  Si  future  event,  that  passage  is  said  to  be  liter= 
ally  understood,  if  the  application  of  it  is  conjined  to 
that  one  event,  however  figurative  the  sense  may  be 
of  any  single  word,  or  words,  employed  in  that  pas- 
sage. This  explanation  is  so  much  the  more  neces- 
sary, as  Hebrew  prophecy  abounds  with  figurative 
terms. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  examples,  which  strictly 
and  literally  relate  to  the  Messiah,  though  in  some 
of  them  we  shall  find  many  single  words,  which 
are  highly  figurative.  But  I  must  previously  ex- 
press my  obligations  on  this  subject  to  Bishop  Chand- 
ler, whom  I  have  chosen  for  my  guide  in  the  selec- 
tion of  those  prophecies,  wliich  literally  predict  the 
coming  of  Christ.  Indeed  a  better  guide  on  this  sub- 
ject we  cannot  have.  No  man  has  more  clearly  per- 
ceived the  importance  of  literal  prophecy  relating  to 
the  Messiah  ;  no  man  has  taken  greater  pains  to  de- 
termine the  question,  what  is  literal  prophecy,  and 
what  is  not :  nor  has  any  one  surpassed  him  in  that 


40  LECTURE  XXI. 

kind  of  erudition,  which  is  necessary  for  such  an  in- 
quiry. Since  then  we  may  he  contented  with  the 
examples,  which  Bishoi)  Chandler  has  given  of  liter- 
al prophecy,  I  will  now  produce  them,  accompanied 
with  such  brief  remarks,  as  the  prophecies  themselves 
suggest.* 

15eginning  with  the  last  prophet  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  concluding  with  the  prophet  Isaiah,  he 
takes  his  first  example  from  Malachi  iii.  1.  <^  Behold, 
I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way 
before  me  :  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  sud- 
denly come  to  his  temple,  even  the  Messenger  of  the 
Covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in  ;  behold  he  shall  come, 
saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  This  prophecy  is  the  more 
remarkable,  as  tico  persons  are  introduced  into  it ; 
namely,  the  Lord,  who  shall  come  to  his  temple,  and 
the  Messenger,  who  shall  prepare  his  way.  When 
two  01*  more  persons  are  mentioned,  there  is  always 
less  probability,  that  the  agreement  between  the  de- 
scription and  the  event  should  be  accidental^  than 
when  only  one  person   is  mentioned.     And  in  the 

*  A  minute  and  critical  examination  of  every  expression,  used 
in  the  prophecies  liere  quoted,  would  be  contrary  to  the  plan  of 
these  Lectures.  In  fact,  it  is  a  deviation  from  that  plan,  (as  ex- 
plained in  the  first  Lecture.)  to  produce  so  many  examples  relafe- 
ing  to  one  subject,  and  nothing  but  the  great  importance  of  this 
subject  could  justify  such  a  deviation.  We  are  at  present  con- 
cerned with  the  principles  of  interpretation  :  and  examples  only 
so  far  accord  with  the  plan,  as  they  serve  to  illustrate  those  prin- 
ciples. 


LECTURE  XXI.  41 

present  case  the  description  not  only  corresponds 
witli  the  persons  of  our  Saviour,  and  John  the  Bap- 
tist, but  corresponds  with  no  other  two  persons  in  the 
whole  Jewish  history.  It  must  therefore  heaproph- 
ecy  of  our  Saviour  and  John  the  Baptist :  a  prophecy 
of  our  Saviour  and  Joha  the  Baptist,  according  to 
its  plain  and  literal  meaning  :  and  it  is  quoted  as  such 
by  our  Saviour  himself,  Matth.  xi.  10. 

The  second  example  is  tali:en  from  Malachi  iv. 
5,  6.  ^'  Behold,  I  will  send  you  Elijah  the  prophet 
before  the  coming  of  the  great  and  dreadful  day  of 
the  Lord.  And  he  shall  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers 
to  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  the 
fathers,  lest  I  come  and  smite  the  earth  with  a  curse/*' 
This  prophecy  our  Saviour  liimself  applies  to  .John 
the  Baptist,  Matth.  xvii,  IS,  13.  Some  commenta- 
tors indeed  have  supposed,  that  he  applied  it  only  in 
a  secondary  sense,  because  when  Jo!in  the  Baptist 
was  asked,  ^*  Art  thou  Elias  ?"  he  saith,  ^»  1  am  not."* 
John  i.  21.  But  though  John  the  Baptist  was  not 
literally  Elias,  or  Elijah,  the  prophecy  might  literal- 
ly relate  to  liim ;  lor  the  literal  interpretation  of  a 
whole  sentence  does  not  exclude  the  fisjurative  use  of 
single  words.  In  all  countries,  and  in  all  languages, 
it  is  common  to  affix  the  names  of  known  and  distin- 
guished characters  to  persons  resembling  them  in  a 
later  age  :  and  there  were  various  points,  in  which 
John  the  Baptist  resembled  the  prophet  Elijah.  They 
were  alike  in  courage :  they  were  alike  in  zeal  for 
6 


42  LECTURE  XXI. 

tbe  restoration  of  pure  religion  :  they  were  alike  iu 
the  austerity  of  their  manners.  Truly  therefore 
might  John  the  Baptist  be  called  another  Elijah. 
And  though  he  was  not  literally  Elijah,  though  be 
was  Elijah  only  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  yet  we  have 
already  seen,  that  the  metaphorical  use  of  single 
terms  does  not  prevent  a  whole  passage  from  being  a 
literal  prophecy. 

The  third  example,  which  is  a  very  important  one, 
is  taken  from  Haggai  ii.  6 — 9.  "  For  thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  hosts  ;  Yet  once,  it  is  a  little  while,  and  I 
will  shake  the  heavens,  and  the  earth,  and  the  sea, 
and  the  dry  land.  And  I  will  shake  all  nations,  and 
the  Desire  of  all  nations  shall  come,  and  I  will  fill 
this  House  with  glory,  saith  the  Lord  (rf  hosts.  The 
silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts.  The  glory  of  this  latter  house  shall  be 
greater,  than  of  tbe  former,  and  iu  this  place  will  1 
give  peace,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  It  is  well 
known,  that  the  second  temple  of  Jerusalem  was  in 
itself  {siT  inferior  in  glory  to  the  first  temple,  or  the 
temple  of  Solomon.  The  greater  glory  therefore  of 
the  second  temple  could  have  been  no  other,  than 
that,  which  it  derived  from  the  advent  of  the  Messi- 
ah. The  Jews  themselves  have  always  understood 
this  passage  of  the  Messiah,  though,  when  the  Mes- 
siah was  come,  they  refused  to  acknowledge  him,  be- 
cause he  did  not  answer  in  all  respects  to  tlie  expec- 
tations, which   they  themselves    had   formed.      But 


LECTURE  XXI.  43 

whatever  doubts  they  might  have  entertained  during 
the  life  of  our  Saviour,  wiiatever  expectations  they 
might  have  formed,  while  the  second  temple  was  still 
standings  one  should  have  supposed,  that  the  destruc- 
tion of  that  temple  by  the  Romans,  with  the  total 
failure  of  the  attempts,  which  have  been  made  to  re- 
build it,  would  have  convinced  the  Jews  of  later  ages, 
that  the  Messiah,  whom  they  expected,  as  the  glory 
of  the  second  Temple,  could  have  been  no  other,  than 
Jesus  Christ.  There  is  no  longer  room  for  an  expec- 
tation of  the  Messiah  :  there  is  no  possibility  of  a  fu- 
ture Messiah  being  the  glory  of  the  second  Temple. 
For  the  second  Temple  is  destroyed,  and  destroyed 
as  the  true  Messiah  predicted. 

The  fourth  example  is  taken  from  Zech.  ix.  9. 
"  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion  ;  shout,  O 
daughter'of  Jerusalem  :  behold  thy  fi'in^g' cometh  unto 
thee;  he  is  just,  and  having  salvation;  lowly  and 
riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an 
ass."  There  is  no  other  event  in  the  Jewish  history, 
to  which  this  prophecy  can  be  applied,  than  to  the 
entrance  of  our  Saviour  into  Jerusalem  :  and  the 
Evangelists  accordingly  apply  it  to  that  purpose.  It 
is  therefore  a  plain  and  literal  prophecy  of  Jesus 
Christ.  For  of  whom  but  of  Jesus  Christ,  can  it  be 
said,  that  he  is  both  just  and  having  salvation  P  Of 
whom  but  of  Jesus  Christ,  can  it  be  said,  that  he 
entered  Jerusalem  in  the  manner  described,  and  was 
at  the  same  time  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  ICing  f 


44  LECTURE  XX I. 

The  fifth  example  is  taken  from  Zech.  xii.  10. 
"I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the 
uihabitauts  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of 
supplications  :  and  they  shall  look  upon  me,  whom 
they  have  pierced,  and  they  shall  mourn  for  him,  as 
one  moLirneth  for  his  only  son,  and  shall  be  in  bitter- 
ness for  him,  as  one,  that  is  in  bitterness  for  his  first- 
born." This  passage  is  quoted  by  St.  John  in  his 
account  of  the  crucifixion,  and  is  there  represented  as 
prophetic  of  our  Siviour's  being  pierced  with  a  spear 
by  one  of  the  Roman  soldiers.  An  objection  indeed 
has  been  made  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the 
personal  pronouns  ;  the  words  of  Zechariah  being 
*^  They  shall  look  on  me,  whom  they  have  pierced," 
whereas  the  words  quoted  by  St.  John  (xix.  37.)  are, 
"  They  shall  look  on  him,  whom  they  pierced."  But 
there  are  Hebrew  manuscripts,  in  which  the  text  of 
Zecharinh  agrees  with  the  text  of  St.  John  ;  and  even 
if  there  were  not,  the  first  person  is  so  frequently 
exchanged  for  the  third  person  in  quotations,  that  one 
cannot  allow  the  exchange  in  question  to  form  any 
serious  ground  of  objection.  The  prophet  was  hard- 
ly speaking  of  himself;  and  that  he  could  allude  only 
to  our  Saviour,  appears  from  a  comparison  of  this 
prophecy  with  the  corresponding  prophecy  in  Isaiah 
(liii.  5.)  ''Hie  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions.'" 
For  if  the  simple  fact,  that  one  of  the  Roman  soldiers 
pierced  our  Saviour's  side,  does  not  of  ifse/f  determine 
the  prophecy  as  belonging  to  our  Saviour,  the  cir- 


LECTURE  XXI.  45 

ciimstances  of  tbe  case  must  confine  it  to  him  alone. 
Here  can  be  no  accidental  parity  of  circumstances  ; 
for  there  is  no  other  person,  beside  our  Saviour,  to 
whom  the  words  of  the  prophet  can  be  applied.  He 
is  assuredly  the  only  one,  whose  side  was  pierced  for 
our  transgressions  :  he  is  assuredly  the  only  one,  of 
whom  it  can  be  said,  that  he  bare  our  sins  in  his  owq 
body  on  the  tree. 

The  sixth  example  is  taken  from  Daniel  ii.  4-1. 
'^  And  in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of 
heaven  set  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall  not  be  destroy- 
ed ;  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to  other  people, 
but  it  shall  break  in  pieces,  and  shall  consume  all 
these  kingdoms,  and  shall  stand  for  ever." 

There  is  no  necessity  for  dwelling  long  upon  this 
prophecy.  There  is  only  one  kingdom,  of  which  we 
can  say,  ^*  it  shall  not  be  destroyed,"  There  is  only 
one  kingdom,  of  which  we  can  say,  ^^it  shall  stand 
ior  ever."  And  that  kingdom  is  the  kingdom  of 
Christ. 

The  seventh  example,  which  is  likewise  taken 
from  the  book  of  Daniel  (vii.  13,  14.)  is  a  similar 
prophecy  of  the  Messiah,  though  with  considerable 
amplification.  "  I  saw  "  (says  Daniel)  ^'  in  the  night- 
visions,  and  behold  oue  like  the  Son  of  Man  came 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient 
of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him.  And 
there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  king- 
dom, that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages  should 


46  LECTURE  XXI. 

serve  liim  :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  (lominion, 
which  sliall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that, 
which  shall  not  l)e  destroyed." 

That  this  prophecy  was  literally  and  strictly  ful- 
filled in  the  person  of  our  Saviour,  and  that  it  neither 
has  been,  nor  ever  can  be,  fulfilled  in  any  one  else,  is 
so  ohvious,  that  explanation  is  unnecessary.  Of  no 
temporal  pi'ince  can  it  be  said,  that  all  nations  and 
languages  shall  serve  him.  Of  no  human  being  can 
it  he  said,  that  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  do- 
minion. 

The  eighth  example  is  the  celebrated  prophecy  of 
Daniel  relating  to  the  seventy  weeks.  Cb.  ix.  24- — 
S7.  ^^  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  peo- 
ple, and  upon  thy  holy  city,  to  finish  the  transgres- 
sion, and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,  and  to  make  recon- 
ciliation for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  everlasting 
righteousness,  and  to  seal  up  the  vision  and  prophecy, 
and  to  anoint  the  most  Holy.  Know  therefore  and 
understand,  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  com- 
mandment, to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem,  unto 
the  Messiah  the  Prince  shall  be  seven  weeks,  and 
threescore  and  two  weeks.  The  street  shall  be  built 
again,  and  the  wall  even  in  troublous  times.  And 
after  threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  Messiah  be  cut 
off,  but  not  for  himself.  And  the  people  of  the  Prince, 
that  shall  come,  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanc- 
tuarv  :  and  t!ie  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and 
unto  the  end  of  the  war  desolations  are  determined. 


LECTURE  XXL  47 

And  he  shall  confirm  the  covenant  with  many  for  one 
week  :  and  in  the  midst  of  the  week  he  shall  cause 
the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation  to  cease  ;  and  for  the 
overspreading  of  ahominaLions  he  shall  make  it  deso- 
late, even  until  the  consummation,  and  that  deter- 
mined, shall  be  poured  upon  the  desolate.'' 

No  prophecy  has  been  subjected  to  greater  con- 
troversy, than  this  :  and  the  modes  of  computing  the 
chronological  parts  of  it  are  almost  as  various  as  the 
interpreters  are  numerous.  An  examination  of  the 
various  opinions,  which  have  been  entertained  on  this 
very  difficult  subject,  cannot  now  be  attempted,  as  it 
would  require  a  dissertation  of  itself :  nor  is  it  neces- 
sary for  our  present  purpose.  From  whatever  event 
we  date  the  computation,  or  in  whatever  manner  we 
explain  the  threescore  and  two  weeks,  after  which 
Messiah  shall  be  cut  off,  the  description  of  the  thing 
itself  so  accords  with  the  circumstances  of  our  Sa- 
viour's death,  that  we  cannot  apply  it  to  any  one  else. 
He  was  cut  off,  but  not  for  himself.  And  before  the 
seven  weeks,  which  were  added  to  the  threescore  and 
two  weeks,  had  likewise  elapsed,  that  is,  before  seven 
times  seven  years  had  elapsed  after  the  time  when 
Messiah  was  cut  off,  the  people  of  the  prince,  that 
should  come,  that  is,  the  Romans  under  the  command 
of  Titus,  destroyed  the  city  and  the  sanctuary.  And 
that  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  was  accomplished  accord- 
ing to  its  strict,  literal,  and  primary  sense,  is  evident 
from  the  definition  of  time,  with  which  it   is   accom- 


48  LECTURE  XXL 

panied.  A  prophecy,  in  which  the  period  of  its  ac- 
coinplishmeut  is  determined,  is  incapable  of  a  two-fold 
application. 

The  ninth  example  is  taken  from  the  prophet 
Micah,  ch.  v.  3.  "  But  thou  Betlilehem  Ephratah, 
though  thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah, 
yet  out  of  thee  shall  Ue  come  forth  unto  me,  that  is 
to  be  ruler  in  Israel,  whose  goings  forth  have  been  of 
old  from  everlasting."  Nothing  can  be  clearer,  than 
that  this  prophecy  was  strictly  and  literally  fulfilled 
in  the  person  of  our  Saviour.  No  one  ever  doubted 
that  our  Saviour  was  born  at  Bethlehem,  a  town  near 
Jerusalem,  a  town  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
and  anciently  called  Ephrath  or  Ephrata,  which  name 
the  prophet  Micah  retains,  in  order  to  distinguish  the 
Bethlehem  of  Judah  from  another  Bethlehem  in  the 
north  of  Palestine.  That  Bethlehem  of  Judah,  though 
formerly  a  place  of  some  importance,  was  little  better 
than  a  village  at  the  time  of  our  Saviour's  birth,  is  a 
fact  universally  known.  That  our  Saviour  was  a 
Tiller  in  Israel,  appears  from  the  tenor  of  his  whole 
life.  And  he  is  unquestionably  the  only  one,  who 
ever  appeared  in  the  form  of  man,  of  whom  we  declare, 
that  his  goings  forth  were  ^' from  everlasting,^^ 

The  tenth  example  is  taken  from  the  prophet  Ha- 
bakkuk,  (ii,  3,  4.)  :  and  the  eleventh  from  the  proph- 
et Amos  (ix.  11,  13.)  But  as  the  application  of  these 
two  prophecies  to  the  Messiah  is  less  obvious,  than 
that  of  the  other  examples,  let  us  proceed  to  the 


LECTURE  XXI.  49 

twelfth  and  last  example,  which  is  the  most  important 
of  all. 

This  example  is  taken  from  the  fifty -third  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  and  properly  begins  at  the  third  verse. 
*^  He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men  ;  a  man  of  sor- 
rows and  acquainted  with  grief.  And  we  hid  as  it 
were  oar  faces  from  him  :  he  was  despised,  and  we 
esteemed  him  not.  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs, 
and  carried  our  sorrows  :  yet  did  we  esteem  him 
stricken,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  But  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions  ;  he  was  bruised  for 
oifr  iniquities.  The  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
upon  Him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All 
we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray  :  we  have  turned 
every  one  to  his  own  way ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid 
on  Him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  He  was  oppressed, 
and  he  was  afflicted  :  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth. 
He  is  brought,  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter :  and,  as  a 
sheep  before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  openeth  not 
his  mouth.  He  was  taken  from  prison  and  from 
judgment;  and  who  shall  declare  his  generation? 
For  he  was  cut  out  of  the  land  of  the  living  :  for  the 
transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  And  he 
made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in 
his  death,  because  he  had  done  no  violence,  neither 
was  any  deceit  in  his  mouth.  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord 
to  bruise  him  ;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief.  When  thou 
shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see 
his  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure 


50  LECTURE  XXI. 

of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see 
of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall  he  satisfied.  By 
his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify 
many  :  for  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities.  Therefore 
will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the  great,  and  he 
shall  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong  :  because  he  hath 
potiredout  his  soul  unto  death,  and  he  was  numbered 
with  the  transgressors,  and  he  bare  the  sin  of  many, 
and  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors." 

In  the  chapter  of  Isaiah,  which  has  been  just 
quoted,  we  have  a  plain  and  literal  description  of  our 
Saviour's  sufferings,  death,  and  burial  :  indeed  ho 
less  plain  and  literal,  than  any  historical  narrative 
could  be,  which  was  written  after  the  events  them- 
selves had  taken  place.  And  that  this  literal  descrip- 
tion is  really  literal  prophecy,  is  a  matter,  which  can- 
not be  questioned.  The  only  way  to  prove,  that  it  is 
history,  and  not  prophecy,  would  be  to  prove  the 
wliole  chapter  an  interpolation  in  the  book  of  Isaiah. 
Now  one  should  hardly  suppose,  that  it  was  interpo- 
lated by  the  Jews,  to  whom  it  is  a  serious  obstacle. 
But  if  it  is  an  interpolation,  the  Jews  alone  could 
have  been  the  authors  of  it.  Had  it  been  interpolated 
by  Christians,  it  would  never  have  been  admitted  by 
the  Jews  into  their  copies  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Yet 
it  has  been  universally  admitted  :  for  not  a  single 
Hebrew  manuscript  was  ever  discovered  irithout  this 
Chapter.  If  the  Jews  however  dtd  interpolate  this 
Chapter,  we  cannot  possibly  suppose,  tliat  the  inter- 


LECTURE  XXI.  51 

polation  was  subsequent  to  the  death  of  Christ.  They 
would  surely  not  have  beeu  so  absurd  as  to  fabricate 
evidence  against  themselves,  though  their  veneration 
for  the  sacred  oracles  prevented  them  from  expunging 
what  already  existed  there.    If  therefore  the  Chapter 
is  an  interpolation  at  ally  it  must  have  been  interpo- 
lated before  the  events  described  in  it  had  taken  place. 
But  if  the  Chapter   was   written   before   the   events, 
described  in  it,  had  taken  place,  it  is  still  an  example 
of  literal  prophecy,  whether  it  proceeded  from  Isaiah, 
or  proceeded  from  some  other  prophet.     And  it  is 
immaterial  whether  we  call  the  writer  of  this  prophe- 
cy by  the  name  Isaiah,  or  call  him  by  any  other  name. 
But  in  fact  there  is  no   more  reason  to  doubt  the  au- 
thenticity of  this  Chapter,  than  of  any  other  in  the 
whole  book.     Nor  have  the  Jews  themselves,  when 
pressed  with  this  prophecy,  though  they  acknowledge 
the  difficulties  to  which  it  exposes  them,  ever  attempt- 
ed to  evade  those  difficulties  by  pretending  that  Isaiah 
was  not  the  author  of  it. 

Now  there  is  no  person  in  the  whole  of  the  Jew- 
ish history,  from  the  time  of  Isaiah  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  to  whom  this  prophecy  is  applicable, 
except  to  our  Saviour  :  and  to  Him  it  is  applicable  in 
every  point.  Of  M'hom  but  of  our  Saviour  can  it  be 
said,  that  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our 
sorrows?  Of  whom  but  of  our  Saviour  can  it  be 
said,  that  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and 
bruised  for  oiw  iniquities  ?     Of  whom  else  could  it  be 


52  LECTURE  XXI. 

said,  that  he  was  stricken  for  the  transgression  of  his 
peojjle,  and  that  his  soul  was  an  offering  for  sinP  In 
fact  that  single  sentence,  *^  he  was  numbered  with  the 
transgressors,  he  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  made 
intercession  for  the  transgressors,'^  is  the  sura  and 
substance  of  the  histi  ry,  which  the  Evangelists  have 
given  of  our  Saviour's  passion.  An  objection  indeed 
has  been  made  to  that  part  of  the  prophecy,  where  it 
is  said,  "  he  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and 
with  the  rich  in  liis  death."  For  though  our  Saviour 
died  with  the  wicked,  he  did  not  make  his^j'are  with 
the  wicked  :  nor  v/as  he  literally  buried  with  the  rich. 
But  the  objection  does  not  affect  the  Hebrew  original ; 
it  affects  only  our  English  translation.  Bishop  Lowth 
has  more  correctly  rendered  the  passage  in  the  fol- 
lowing maner  :  ^'  His  grave  was  appointed  with  the 
wicked  ;  but  with  the  rich  man  was  his  tomb."  This 
translation  removes  the  first  difficulty,  but  not  alto- 
gether the  second.  The  most  accurate  translation  is 
the  Latin  translation  of  Professor  Dathe:  *•' Bestin-' 
atiim  quidem  ei  erat  sepulchrura  cum  impiis,  sed  in 
morte  sua  divitibus  similis  fuit."  This  translation 
perfectly  accords  with  the  circumstances  of  our  Sa- 
viour's death  and  burial.  In  cons-equence  of  being 
crucified  in  company  with  malefactors,  he  was  so  far 
destined  to  have  also  his  grave  with  them  ;  for,  ac- 
cording to  the  common  course  of  things,  he  would, 
after  being  crucified  with  them,  have  been  also  buried 
with  them.     On  the  other  hand,  though  he  was  not 


LECTURE  XXI.  53 

buried  itith  the  rich,  being  laid  in  a  sepulchre  where 
no  one  had  lain  before,  yet  he  was  buried  after  the 
manner  of  the  rich,  being  laid  in  a  tomb,  which  a  man 
of  the  highest  rank  among  the  Jews  had  prepared  for 
his  own  family.  Thus  we  see,  that  every  part  of  this 
remarkable  prophecy  was  strictly  and  literally  fulfil- 
led in  the  person  of  our  Saviour. 

To  the  examples  already  quoted  from  Bishop 
Chandler^s  Defence  of  Christianity,  might  be  added 
ofAer  prophecies,  which  literally  apply  to  our  Saviour, 
and  to  no  one  el«e.  But  it  will  be  sufficient  to  add 
one  more  example,  which  is  an  example  of  great  im- 
portance. In  the  niuth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  savs  the 
prophet ;  "Unto  us  a  Child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is 
given ;  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder ; 
and  his  name  shall  be  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  The 
mighty  God,  The  everlasting  Father,  The  Prince  of 
Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and  peace 
there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and 
upon  his  kingdom  to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with 
judgment  and  with  justice,  from  henceforth  even  for 
ever."  Here  we  have  a  description,  which  is  quite 
inapplicable  to  any  temporal  prince.  Whatever  al- 
lowances be  granted  for  oriental  hyperbole  ;  whatever 
deductions  be  made  on  this  account  from  the  grandeur 
of  this  description,  there  is  one  part  at  least,  which 
must  be  taken  literally.  When  Isaiah  declared,  that 
of  his  government  there  should  be  no  end,  the  expres- 
sion is  too  -precise,  to  admit  any  latitude  of  interpret- 
ation.    This  part  therefore  must  be  interpreted  liter- 


54  LECTURE  XXI. 

ally.  But  of  what  temporal  Prince  can  we  say,  that 
his  government  has  no  end  P  There  are  also  other 
reasons,  which  prevent  its  application  to  any  temporal 
Prince  among  the  Jews,  The  prophecy  was  deliv- 
ered in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  to  whom  indeed  a  son 
was  born  ;  but  a  son,  who  was  neither  Counsellor,  nor 
Wonderful,  nor  the  Prince  of  Peace.  For  "  Manas- 
seh  made  Judah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  to 
err,  and  to  do  worse  than  the  heathen^  whom  the 
Lord  had  destroyed  before  the  children  of  Israel." 
(2  Chron.  xxxiii.  9.)  And  his  government  had  not 
only  an  end,  but  a  melancholy  end  :  for  the  King  of 
Assyria  "  bound  him  with  fetters,  and  carried  him  cap- 
tive to  Babylon."  Nor  did  many  years  elapse,  before 
Jerusalem  itself  was  levelled  with  the  ground.  And 
if  we  examine  the  later  period  of  the  Jewish  history, 
if  we  endeavour  to  find  in  this  sublime  passage  a 
description,  either  of  Judas  Maccabseus,  or  of  Simon, 
or  of  Hyrcanus,  or  of  any  other  prince  of  the  Asmo- 
nsean  race,  the  prophecy  is  again  inapplicable.  For 
those  princes  were  not  of  the  house  of  David  :  and  to 
the  house  of  David  was  that  prophecy  restricted.  It 
applies  therefore  to  the  person  of  the  Messiah,  and  of 
the  Messiah  alone. 

The  examples,  which  have  been  quoted  in  this 
Lecture,  afibrd  suflBcient  proof,  that  the  Hebrew 
prophets  have  strictly  and  literally  foretold  the  coming 
of  Christ.  IIow  far,  and  in  what  respect,  they  have 
foretold  his  coming  in  a  secondary  sense,  shall  be  the 
subject  of  inquiry  in  the  next  Lecture. 


LECTURE  XXII. 


J.  HE  examples,  which  were  quoted  in  the  preced- 
ing Lecture,  are  sufficient  to  shew,  that,  if  agreeably 
to  our  Saviour's  directions,  we  search  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament  for  passages,  which  testify  of 
Him,  our  researches  will  not  be  fruitless.  For  the 
examples,  quoted  in  that  Lecture,  are  prophecies, 
which  testify  of  Christ,  according  to  their  plain  and 
literal  meaning.  We  may  now,  therefore,  without 
anxiety,  inquire  into  the  foundation  of  that  sense, 
which  is  sometimes  called  the  remote  sense,  at  other 
times  the  mystical  sense,  at  other  times  the  secondary 
sense,  of  prophecy.  For  let  the  result  of  an  inquiry 
into  secondary  senses  be  what  it  will,  the  prophecies, 
which  testify  of  Christ  according  to  their  primary 
sense,  are  sufficiently  numerous,  to  supply  us  with 
arguments  for  the  truih  of  our  religion. 

In  conducting  the  proposed  inquiry,  we  must  ex- 
amine the  two  following  questions.  First,  we  must 
examine  what  the  difficulties  are,  which  attend  the 
notion  of  secondary  senses  in  s^enernl.     And  then  we 


56  LECTURE  XXII. 

must  examine,  whether,  notwithstanding  those  diffi. 
culties,  there  are  not  some  prophecies  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  really  have  a  secondary  sense. 

In  the  first  place  then,  let  us  consider  the  difficul- 
ties, which  attend  the  notion  of  secondary  senses  in 
general.  With  respect  to  single  words,  there  are  few, 
which  do  not  admit  of  more  senses  than  one :  and  it 
frequently  happens,  that  the  same  word,  in  diflPerent 
passages,  is  used  in  very  different  senses.  But  then 
it  must  be  observed,  that  in  each  of  these  passages, 
the  word  has  its  determinate  meaning  :  and  that  it  is 
not  allowable  to  exchange  at  pleasure  the  sense,  which 
attaches  to  the  word  in  one  case,  for  the  sense,  which 
attaches  to  it  in  another.  If  it  were,  the  words  of  an 
author  would  be  understood  in  a  very  different  sense 
from  that,  which  he  himself  afUxed  to  them ;  they 
would  not  be  signs  to  the  reader  of  what  was  thought 
by  the  author ;  and  the  object  of  his  writing  would 
be  defeated. 

On  the  other  hand,  though  perspicuity  is  in  gen- 
eral the  first  duty  of  an  author,  there  are  cases,  where 
the  object,  which  he  has  in  view,  can  be  attained  only 
by  amhigiiity.  It  may  be  an  author's  design  to  write 
enigmatically  :  and  this  object  will  be  best  promoted 
by  the  selection  of  such  words,  as  admit  of  two  differ- 
ent senses  in  one  and  the  same  place.  Words  so 
chosen,  and  so  placed,  are  then  designedly  used  in  a 
double  sense.  But  in  such  casrs,  though  the  icords 
are  used  in  a  double  sense,  and  the  author's  meaning 


LECTURE  XXII.  57 

is  80  far  arabigaous,  there  is  in  general  a  limit  to  the 
ambiguity.  If  the  author  intentleil  nothing  more,  than 
a  common  enigma,  it  is  a  thing,  which  admits  of  a 
solution.  We  may  discover,  not  only  what  the  two 
senses  are^  in  which  the  ambiguous  term  is  used,  but 
also  in  wiiat  manner  each  of  those  senses,  according 
to  the  author's  design,  is  to  be  applied.  And  eveo 
where  the  author  intended-  to  leave  the  reader,  or 
bearer,  entirely  in  the  dark,  with  respect  to  the  proper 
application  of  the  two  senses  attached  to  the  ambigu- 
ous term  it  is  seldom  a  question  what  those  senses  a7'e. 
When,  for  instance,  a  heathen  oracle  was  delivered 
in  such  ambiguous  terms,  as  to  make  it  accord  with  a 
future  event,  whether  that  event  proved  favourable,  or 
unfavourable,  to  tiie  person,  who  consulted  the  oracle, 
the  ambiguity  consisted,  not  in  any  doubt  about  the 
senses  themselves^  between  which  the  person  had  to 
choose,  but  in  the  want  of  a  clue,  to  determine  his 
choice. 

There  is  no  analoj^y,  therefore,  between  the  am- 
biguity observable  in  the  two  preceding  cases,  and 
the  double  sense  of  prophecy,  as  the  term  is  under- 
stood, in  reference  to  tiie  sacred  writings.  When  we 
interpret  a  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  which, 
besides  its  literal  meaning,  is  supposed  to  contain  a 
mystical  meaning,  or,  in  other  words,  a  prophecy, 
which  is  supposed  to  contain,  both  a.  primary,  and  a 
secondary  sense,  the  grand  difficulty  is  to  ascertain 
what  that  secondary  sense  really  is.  We  are  not  la 
8 


58  LECTURE  XXII. 

want  of  a  clue,  to  deterraiue  our  choice  between  two 
senses  already  known  ;  but  we  want  a  clue,  which 
shall  lead  us  from  the  knowledge  of  one  sense  to  a 
discovery  of  the  other.  The  primary  sense  of  a  He- 
brew prophecy  is  ascertained  by  a  grammatical  analy- 
sis of  the  Hebrew  ivorils.  But  no  such  grammati- 
cal analysis  will  assist  us,  in  discovering  the  secon- 
dary sense  of  a  Hebrew  prophecy.  Indeed  most 
writers,  who  treat  oi  secondary  senses,  contend,  that 
those  secondary  senses  were  unknown  to  the  proph- 
ets themselves ;  and  that  Divine  Providence  so  or- 
dered it,  that  the  very  persons,  who  committed  to 
writing  the  words,  which  were  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  did  not  perceive  the  whole  extent  of  their 
meaning.  But  if  words,  employed  in  a  Hebrew 
prophecy,  were  intended  to  convey  a  sense  so  remote^ 
from  the  common  acceptation  of  the  words,  that  even  i 
the  prophet,  who  wrote  the  words,  did  not  perceive 
the  sense  intended,  the  same  divine  authoiity,  which 
communicated  the  prophecy,  must  interpose,  to  ex- 
plain the  propliecy.  For,  icithout  such  divine  in- 
terposition, it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose,  that  we  _ 
could  discover  the  meaning  of  a  prophecy,  which  the 
prophet  himself  was  unable  to  discover.  If  we  say, 
that  a  prophecy  relating  to  the  Messiah  may  be  un- 
derstood by  us,  though  not  by  the  prophet,  becansa- 
we  have  the  advantage  of  having  seen  its  accomplish- 
ment, we  argue,  thou2;h  unconsciously,  from  a  petitio 
principii.      When   it   is  previously  known,   that  a 


LECTURE  XXII.  59 

prophecy  does  relate  to  the  Messiah,  they,  who  live 
to  see  its  accomplishment,  will  undoubtedly  have  a 
more  comprehensive  view  of  the  subject,  than  they, 
who  lived  in  a  preceding  age.  But,  when  the  ques- 
tion is  in  agitation^  whether  a  certain  passage  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which,  according  to  its  literal  mean- 
ing, does  not  apply  to  the  Messiah,  has  also  a  mys- 
tical meaning,  which  does  so  apply,  we  take  for 
granted  the  thing  to  be  proved,  if  we  begin  by  argu- 
ing about  its  Gccomplishment,  We  must  ascertain 
the  existence  of  the  prophecy,  before  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  prophecy  can  be  matter  even  of  inquiry. 
It  is  true,  that  the  words,  in  which  the  prophecy  is 
delivered,  may  be  of  such  general  import,  as  not  to 
excite  the  notion  of  any  one  particular  event ;  but 
that  a  particular  event  may  happen  in  a  future  age, 
which  so  accords  with  the  words  of  the  prophecy,  as 
to  enable  us  to  perceive  a  connexion  between  the 
words  and  the  event,  which  was  not  perceived  before 
the  event.  And,  if  a  prophecy  can  be  interpretedhy 
no  other  means  than  by  history,  or  by  the  actual  arri- 
val of  that  very  event,  to  which  the  prophecy  relates, 
the  prophecy  must  in  that  case  be  fulfilled^  before 
the  prophecy  can  be  understood.  But  then  it  must 
be  observed,  that  throughout  the  whole  of  this  rea- 
soning the  existence  of  the  prophecy  is  presupposed. 
We  set  out  with  the  supposition,  that  a  certain  pas- 
sage was  originally  designed  to  be  prophetic  of  some 
future  event :  and  then  comparing  a  particular  event 


60  LECTURE  XXII. 

with  the  description  given  in  that  passage,  wc  argue 
from  the  similarity  between  the  event  and  the  des- 
cription, that  the  one  is  connected  with  the  other. 
But  ia  whatever  case  we  must  previously  examinef 
whether  a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  really  was  de- 
signed for  prophecy,  or  not ;  in  other  words,  wherev- 
er the  existence  of  a  prophecy  must  be  previously 
established,  something  more  is  requisite  for  that  pur- 
pose, than  a  mere  correspondence  between  the  pas- 
sage in  question,  and  the  event,  to  which  we  apply  it. 
[Now,  if  we  consider  the  peculiar  character  of 
prophecy  in  a  secondary  sense,  we  shall  find  that 
the  existence  of  every  such  prophecy  must  be  estab- 
lished, before  we  can  begin  to  argue  about  its  ac- 
complishment. And  to  conduct  such  a  proof  il^ot 
quite  so  easy,  as  many  writers  have  imagined.  In 
this  respect,  there  is  a  material  difference  between 
prophecy  in  a  jjrimary  sense,  and  prophecy  in  a  sec- 
ondary sense.  The  primary  sense  of  a  prophecy  is 
the  literal  sense  of  the  passage,  by  which  the  proph- 
ecy is  conveyed.  And  this  sense  we  obtain  by  a  gram- 
matical  analysis  of  the  words.  But  when  we  attempt 
to  discover  a  secondary  sense,  we  attempt  to  go  fur' 
thery  than  the  words  will  carry  us.  Beside  the  plain 
and  primary  sense,  which  the  words  of  the  prophecy 
do  convey,  we  seek  for  some  remote,  or  mystical 
sense,  which  the  words  of  the  propliecy  do  not  con- 
vey. Const" quently  we  undertake  what  we  ourselves 
have  not  the  means  of  performing. 


LECTURE  XXIT.  Gl 

It  is  true,  that  many  writers  have  endeavoured 
to  shew  the  practicability  of  the  attempt  by  compar- 
ing the  double  seuse  of  prophecy  with  the  double 
sense  of  allegory.  Every  allegory  has  two  senses  ; 
one  of  which  is  a  literal  sense,  the  other  an  allegor- 
ical sense.  And  a  knowledge  of  the ^rsf  sense  leads 
us  to  a  discovery  of  the  second  sense.  Why  therefore 
(it  is  said)  may  we  not  ascribe  a  double  sense  to  proph- 
ecy ?  And,  if  a  prophecy  has  a  double  sense,  may 
we  not  argue  from  the  first  to  the  second  sense,  in 
the  same  manner,  as  we  argue  from  the  first  to  the 
second  sense  in  allegory  P  This  is  the  common  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  that  system,  which  provides  a 
double  meaning  for  the  propliecies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  one  relating  to  the  Jewish,  the  other  to  the 
Christian  dispensation.  But  the  argument,  though 
very  specious,  and  employed  by  very  eminent  writ- 
ers, will  appear  on  examination  to  be  altogether  un- 
tenable. It  is  founded  on  a  supposed  analogy  be- 
tween the  double  sense  of  prophecy,  and  the  double 
sense  of  allegory;  whereas,  the  two  things,  instead 
of  being  analogous,  are  totally  dissimiltt^\  When  M'e 
interpret  a  prophecy,  to  which  a  double  meaning  is 
ascribed,  the  one  relating  to  the  Jewish,  the  other  to 
the  Christian  dispensation,  we  are  in  either  case  con- 
cerned with  an  interpretation  of  words.  For  the 
same  words,  which,  according  to  one  interpretation, 
are  applied  to  one  event,  are,  according  to  another 
interpretation,  applied  to  another  event.     But,  in  the 


62  LECTURE  XXII. 

interpretation  of  au  allegory,  we  are  coueerned  ouly 
in  the^rs^  instance  with  an  interpretation  of  w^ords  : 
the  second  sense,  which  is  usually  called  the  allegor- 
ical sense,  being  an  interpretation  of  tilings,  as  was 
fully  proved  in  the  Lecture  on  that  subject.  An  al- 
legorv  is  commonly  delivered  in  the  form  of  a  narra- 
tive, as  in  those  two  incomparable  allegories,  our 
Saviour's  parable  of  the  sower,  and  Nathan's  para- 
ble to  David.  And  the  interpretation  of  the  words 
gives  nothing  more,  than  the  plain  and  simple  nar- 
ratives themselves  ;  whereas  the  moral  of  the  allego- 
ry is  learnt  by  an  application  of  the  tilings,  signified 
by  those  words,  to  other  things,  which  resemble 
them,  and  which  the  former  were  intended  to  suggest. 
There  is  a  fundamental  difference  therefore  between 
the  interpretation  of  an  allegory,  and  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  prophecy  with  a  double  sense. 

If  we  proceed  with  the  parallel,  we  shall  find 
other  differences,  which  destroy  the  analogy  alto- 
gether. In  the  interpretation  of  prophecy  we  are 
concerned  with  historic  truth  :  in  the  interpretation 
of  allegory  we  are  concerned  with  moral  truth. 
And  this  difference  leads  again  to  a  still  greater  dif- 
ference. For  since  the  object  of  allegory  is  moral 
truth,  the  narrative,  which  conveys  the  allegory,  is 
commonly  fictitious,  as  in  the  two  examples  already 
quoted.  But  in  the  interpretation  of  prophecy, 
whether  w^e  consider  tiie  primary,  or  consider  the 
secondary  sense,  we  are  wholly  and  solely  concern- 


LECTURE  XXII.  63 

ed  with  real  events.  Lastly,  in  the  interpretation  of 
an  allegory,  we  have  a  clue,  which  leads  us  from 
one  sense  to  tlie  other.  Sometimes  the  allegory  is 
accompanied  with  an  explanation  :  and  even  where 
an  allegory  is  left  to  explain  itself^  the  application  of 
one  sense  to  the  other  must  be  easy  and  obvious,  or 
the  object  of  the  allegory  will  be  defeated.  If  the 
immediate  representation,  which  is  suggested  by  the 
words  of  the  allegory,  has  not  a  manifest  correspon- 
dence with  the  ultimate  representation,  or  the  moral 
of  the  allegory,  we  lose  the  very  thing,  which  consti- 
tutes its  worth.  In  exerj  allegory  tlierefore  there 
is,  and  must  &e,  a  clue,  which  leads  from  one  sense 
to  the  other.  But  in  the  interpretation  of  a  jirophecy, 
to  which  a  double  meaning  is  ascribed,  we  have  no 
clue  whatever,  which  can  lead  us  from  the  primary 
to  the  secondary  sense.  The  primary  sense  is  sug- 
gested by  the  words  of  the  prophecy.  But  the  sec- 
ondary sense  is  suggested,  neither  by  the  words  of 
the  prophecy,  nor  by  the  things,  which  those  words 
signify.  It  is  a  hidden,  a  remote  sense ;  indeed  so 
hidden,  and  so  remote  from  the  literal  sense,  that  it 
is  supposed  to  have  been  unknoicn  even  to  the  proph- 
et, who  committed  the  prophecy  to  writing. 

Yet,  with  all  these  impediments,  the  system  of 
primary  and  secondary  senses  received  such  an  ac- 
cession of  strength  from  the  celebrated  author  of  the 
Divine  Legation,  that  many  subsequent  writers  have 
agreed  with  him  in  the  opinion,  that  tlie*   system,   as 


€4  LECTURK  XXI I. 

he  explained  it,  is  proof  against  every  objection. 
According  to  this  explanation,  the  existence  of  sec- 
ondary senses  in  Hebrew  prophecy  is  founded  on  the 
supposition  of  their  *^  logical  propriety  and  moral  fit- 
ness." The  secondary  sense  of  a  prophecy  is  there 
represented,  as  having  the  same  relation  to  the  pri- 
mary sense,  which  an  antitype  has  to  its  type.  But, 
if  the  primary  and  secondary  senses  of  prophecy  are 
subservient  to  the  same  end  with  types  and  antitypes, 
it  is  inferred,  that  they  rest  on  the  same  foundation. 
As  the  Jews,  for  instance,  wlien  they  sacrificed  their 
paschal  lamb,  were  not  aware,  that  this  was  a  type, 
prophetic  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  so  it  is  argued, 
that  there  might  be  verbal  prophecies  of  the  same 
event,  though  the  literal  meaning  of  those  prophecies 
no  more  suggested  that  event  to  the  Jews,  than  the 
type^  by  which  it  was  prefigured.  And  the  moral 
Jitr,ess,  as  well  of  primary  and  secondary  senses  on 
the  one  hand,  as  of  types  and  antitypes  on  the  other, 
is  argued  on  the  following  ground.  The  Law  being 
only  a  preparation  for  the  Gospel,  the  Jews  were 
kept  in  ignorance  about  the  real  tendency  of  types, 
till  those  types  were  superseded  by  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  antitypes  :  for,  if  they  had  previously 
understood  the  meaning  of  those  types,  they  might 
have  neglected  the  Law,  before  the  fulness  of  time 
was  come.  A  fore-knowledge  of  its  intended  aboli- 
tion, a  fore-knowledge,  that  it  was  only  a  shadow  of 
better  things  to  come,  might  have  induced  thera   to 


LECTURE  XXII.  G5 

disregard  the  preparatory  Dispensation,  even  during 
the  period,  while  it  was  destined  to  last.  But  the 
same  reason,  as  is  further  argued,  for  which  the  Jews 
were  kept  in  ignorance  about  the  meaning  of  f^Z/'es  re- 
lating to  the  Messiah,  must  have  operated  also  in  the 
case  of  verbal  prophecy  relating  to  the  Messiah.  The 
same  veil  of  obscurity,  which  was  thrown  over  the 
former,  is  supposed  therefore  to  have  been  necessari- 
ly thrown  over  the  latter,  in  order  to  preserve  con- 
sistency in  the  several  parts  of  the  Jewish  Dispensa- 
tion. And  to  this  purpose  nothing  is  supposed  to 
have  been  better  adapted  than  the  use  of  secondary 
senses  ;  because  these  senses  are  so  remote  from  the 
literal  sense,  that  tliey  occurred  not  to  the  prophets 
themselves.  Lastly,  to  the  objection,  that  secondary 
or  mystical  senses  may  be  multiplied  without  end, 
while  the  literal  or  primary  sense  of  a  passage  can 
be  only  one,  it  is  answered,  that,  when  the  system  is 
so  explained,  the  secondary  sense  has  no  less  its  lim- 
it, than  the  primary  sense,  the  one  being  determined 
by  a  reference  to  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  the 
other  is  determined  by  a  reference  to  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation. 

Such  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  that  ingenious 
system,  which  was  proposed  by  the  celebrated  au- 
thor of  the  Divine  Legation.  Eut,  if  we  examine  it 
closely,  we  shall  find,  that  it  labours  under  difficul- 
ties, which  are  not  easily  surmounted.  In  the  first 
place,  the  tendency  of  this  system  is  to  destroy  ew- 
9 


66  LECTURE  XXII. 

tirely  the  notion  of  prophecies,  which  relate  to  the 
coining  of  Christ  according  to  their  literal  sense. 
But  we  have  already  seen,  not  only  how  important 
it  is  to  shew  the  existence  of  such  prophecies ;  we 
have  further  seen,  that  many  such  prophecies  really 
do  exist.  That  the  tendency  of  this  system  is  to  de- 
stroy the  notion  of  literal  prophecy,  appears  from  the 
very  2?iir/7or^  of  the  system.  The  logical  propriety 
and  moral  fitness,  which  are  supposed  to  have  operat- 
ed in  one  case,  must  be  supposed  to  have  operated 
in  another.  The  whole  system  would  be  destroyed 
by  the  allowance  of  exceptions.  If  concealment  was 
the  object  of  secondary  senses,  that  object  would  be 
defeated  by  every  prophecy,  which  foretold  the  com- 
ing of  Ciirist  in  a  literal  sense.  And  accordingly 
we  find,  that  the  author  himself,  in  his  Doctrine  of 
Grace,  speaks  of  the  prophecies  which  relate  to  the 
Messiah,  as  relating  to  hira  generally  in  a  secondary 
sense.  But  in  a  part  of  his  Divine  Legation  he  ap- 
pears so  sensible  of  the  importance  of  literal  prophe- 
cy, that  he  allows  the  existence  of  some  such  proph- 
ecies, and  even  argues  against  Grotius,  who  denies 
their  existence.  At  the  same  time,  being  aware, 
that  prophecies,  however /t^tt*,  which  predict  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  according  to  their  primary  sense,  are  so 
many  obstacles  in  the  way  o  a  system,  which  is 
founded  in  obscurity,  he  endeavours  to  remove  those 
obstacles  by  saying,  that  whatever  prophecies  do  re- 
late to  the  Messiah  in  their  primary   sense,   are  dc- 


LECTURE  XXII.  6T 

livered  in  such  figurative  terms,  as  to  produce  the 
same  obscurity,  which  is  produced  by  secondary  sen- 
ses. But  this  attempt  to  remove  the  acknowledged 
obstacles  is  by  no  means  satisfactory.  For  however 
figurative  the  use  of  single  words  in  any  passage  may 
be,  yet  if  the  passage  itself  is  interpreted  literally, 
as  the  primary  sense  requires,  we  shall  still  obtain  a 
determinate  sense.  We  shall  obtain  the  sense,  con- 
veyed by  the  words  of  the  passage  :  and  the  meaning 
of  each  word,  whether  literal  or  figurative,  will  be 
ascertained  by  the  context.  Let  the  terms  therefore 
of  any  passage  be  as  figurative,  as  the  argument  may 
require,  yet  the  primary  sense  of  that  passage  can 
never  be  subject  to  the  same  obscurity,  which  envel- 
ops a  mystical  or  secondary  sense.  It  is  impossible, 
that  a  sense,  which  the  words  of  the  passage  do  con- 
vey, should  be  equally  concealed  from  the  view  of 
the  reader,  with  a  meaning,  which  the  words  of  the 
passage  do  not  convey.  The  system  in  question 
therefore  is  irreconcileable  with  the  notion  of  proph- 
ecies, which  predict  the  coming  of  Christ  in  a,  prima- 
ry sense.  And  the  consequences  of  rejecting  that 
notion  are  sufficiently  apparent  from  the  preceding 
Lecture. 

Another  difficulty,  under  which  the  system  labours, 
is  this  ;  that  the  existence  of  a  thing  is  argued  from 
the  supposed  propriety  of  the  thing.  But  there  are 
hundreds  of  things,  of  which  we  might  plausibly  shew, 
that  they  would  properly  have  taken  place,  not  one 


68  LECTURE  XXil. 

of  which  ever  has  taken  place.     Even  therefore  if  it 
be  granted,  that  a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  literally  relates  to  one  event,  has  a  moral  fitness 
for  relation  to  another  event,  that  moral  fitness  will 
not  establish  (he  existence  of  such  relation.     But  let 
the  inference  be  allowed,  and   the  existence  of  the 
secondary  sense  admitted,  it  will  still  be  of  no  use  to 
us,  unless  we  have  the  means  of  discovering  that  sense. 
And  how  shall  we  discover  that  sense  by  the  logical 
propriety  or  moral  fitness,  which  we  ascribe  to  it? 
These  are  qualities,  which  attach  to  so  many  things, 
that  they  can  never  lead  to  the  discovery  of  any  one 
thing.     If  we  say;  that  the  secondary  sense  is  de- 
termined by  a  reference  to  the  Christian  Dispensa- 
tion, there  are  again  so  many  objects  of  reference  in 
the  Christian  Dispensation,  that  we  shall  be  still  at  a 
loss  for  the  ^particular  application.  In  the  application 
of  secondary  senses  we  are  concerned,  not  with  the 
comparison  of  some  event  with  a  sense  already  known, 
but  with  the  comparison  of  some  event  with  a  sense, 
which  is  to  be  discovered,  and  discovered  by  its  rela- 
tion to  that  event.     Consequently,  if  different  inter- 
preters select  different  events  for^the  objects  of  com- 
parison, as  they  undoubtedly  will,  unless  they  abide 
by  some  common  authority,  they  may  agree  in  the 
opinion,  that  a  passage  of  the  Old  Testament  has  a 
secondary  sense,  but  they  will  differ  in  opinion  with 
respect  to  t!ie  question,  what  that  secondary  sense 
really  is. 


LECTURE  XXIT.  69 

II. 

After  all  then,  it  appears  that  there  is  uo  system 
whatever,  by  which  we  can  either  establish  the  exist- 
ence of  secondary  senses,  or  by  which,  on  the  swp- 
position  of  their  existence,  we  can  discover  their  real 
meaning.  We  must  be  contented,  therefore,  as  at 
the  beginning  of  the  preceding  Lecture,  to  resolve  the 
question  of  secondary  senses,  into  a  question  of  au- 
thority. In  whatever  case  a  passage  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which,  according  to  its  strict  and  literal  sense, 
relates  to  some  earlier  event  in  the  Jewish  history,  is 
yet  applied,  either  by  Christ,  or  by  an  Apostle  of 
Christ,  to  what  happened  in  their  days ;  and  more- 
over, is  so  applied,  as  to  indicate,  that  the  passage  is 
prophetic  ;  of  such  passage  we  must  conclude  on  their 
authority,  that  beside  its  plain  and  primary  sense,  it 
has  also  a  remote  or  secondary  sense.  The  difficul- 
ties, v/hich  no  human  system  can  remove,  are  in  such 
eases  removed  by  Divine  Power  ;  the  discoveries, 
which  human  reason  attempts  in  vain,  are  there  un- 
folded by  divine  intelligence  ;  and  the  same  divine 
authority,  which  conununicated  the  prophecy,  inter- 
poses to  explain  the  prophecy.  Though  we  ourselves 
are  unable  to  discover  any  other  meaning  in  a  Hebrew 
prophecy,  than  that  which  the  words  themselves  con- 
vey b}^  their  own  proper  import ;  yet,  when  we  have 
such  authority  for  the  opinion,  that  beside  the  plain 
or  primary  sense,  which  the  words  convey  to  us,  they 


ro  LECTURE  XXII. 

have  also  a  remote  or  hidden  sense,  which  the  words 
do  not  convey  to  us,  it  would  be  presumptuous  to 
question  tlie  existence  of  that  sense,  by  opposing  the 
result  of  our  own  researches  to  the  decisions  of  uner- 
ring wisdom. 

Notwithstanding  the  difficulties  therefore,  which 
attend  the  notion  of  secondary  senses  in  general,  we 
must  allow,  that  there  are  some  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  really  have  a  secondary  sense. 
Bat,  since  in  every  instance,  where  a  passage  of  the 
Old  Testament  has  a  secondary  sense,  the  existence 
of  that  secondary  sense  depends  entirely  on  the  divine 
authority,  which  has  ascribed  it  to  the  passage,  we 
must  wholly  confine  the  application  of  a  secondary 
sense  to  those  particular  passages,  to  which  a  second- 
ary sense  has  been  ascribed  by  divine  authority. 
There  is  no  supposed  logical  propriety,  no  supposed 
moral  fitness,  which  can  either  establish  the  existence, 
or  lead  to  the  discovery,  of  such  senses.  It  is  author- 
ity, and  authority  alone  ;  though  we  may  fairly  pre- 
sume from  the  very  exercise  of  such  authority,  that  in 
every  instance  where  a  secondary  sense  is  applied  by 
such  authority,  there  is  a  moral  fitness  for  the  appli- 
cation. But  then  the  application  does  not  depend  on 
such  moral  fitness  :  it  depends  on  the  authority  itself. 
And  since  this  authority  is  confined  to  individual  cases, 
the  doctrine  of  secondary  senses  is  reducible  to  no 
system.  As  in  the  relation  of  types  to  antitypes  we 
cannot  go  beyond  those  particular  examples,  which 


LECTURE  XXII.  71 

are  ratified  by  divine  authority^  so  in  every  instance 
the  same  divine  authority  must  be  produced,  before 
we  can  recognise,  in  a  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament, 
both  a  primary  and  a  secondary  sense. 

Indeed,  if  we  once  transgress  the  limit  prescribed 
by  this  authority,  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  any  limit 
to  the  introduction  of  secondary  senses.  For  since 
the  secondary  sense  of  a  passage  is  a  sense,  which  the 
words  do  not  cony ey  of  therns elves,  it  is  manifest  that, 
as  soon  as  we  begin  to  trust  in  our  oum  interpretation, 
we  shall  interpret  without  rule  or  guide.  Though  no 
passage  can  have  more  than  one  grammatical  mean, 
ing,  yet,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  indulge  ourselves  in 
the  invention  of  mystical  meanings,  it  is  impossible 
to  say,  where  we  shall  stop.  We  shall  come  at  length 
to  that  wantonness  of  interpretation,  which  is  display- 
ed by  most  of  the  Jewish  Commentators,  and  by  many 
among  the  Christian  Fathers.  We  have  already  seen, 
that  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  interpretation  of 
prophecy  and  the  interpretation  of  allegory,  unless 
indeed  it  should  so  happen  that  an  allegory  was 
meant  to  be  prophetic,  which  however  is  not  its  usual 
character.  But  such  was  the  fondness  for  allegorical 
interpretation,  that  instead  of  confining  it  to  allegory 
itself,  both  Jewish  and  Christian  Commentators  have 
extended  it  to  history  and  prophecy,  where  it  is  wholly 
inapplicable.  When  allegorical  interpretation  is  em- 
ployed where  it  properly  belongs,  namely,  in  the 
interpretatioa   of  a  real   alles;ory,  there  is  always  a 


7SL  LECTURE  XXIL 

conneicion  between  the  literal  and  the  allegorical 
sense.  There  is  always  a  chief  which  leads  us  from 
one  sense  to  the  other.  But  if  we  endeavour  to  find 
an  allegorical  sense,  either  in  history  or  in  i)roj)hecy, 
we  endeavour  to  find  a  sense,  with  which  the  literal 
sense  is  wholly  unconnected^  The  sense  therefore 
will  be  supplied  by  mere  imagination  :  and  not  only 
will  different  interpreters  invent  different  senses,  but 
even  the  same  interpreter  may  invent  as  many  as  he 
pleases.  Indeed  there  have  been  Jewish  Commen- 
tators, wlio  have  boasted,  that  they  could  discover 
seventy  Midrashin,  or  mystical  meanings  in  one  sen- 
tence. Some  limit  therefore  is  absolutely  necessary : 
and  enough  has  been  already  said  to  shew,  that  the 
only  limit,  in  which  we  can  confide,  is  the  limit  as- 
signed by  the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
This  appeal  to  authority,  as  the  foundation  of 
secondary  senses,  is  consistent  also  with  the  plan, 
which  is  adopted  in  these  Lectures.  For  it  has  been 
already  shewn,  that  there  are  prophecies,  which  fore- 
tel  the  coming  of  Christ,  according  to  their  literal  and 
primary  sense.  By  these  propliecies,  united  with  the 
argument  from  miracles,  we  establish  the  divine  au- 
thority of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  independently  of 
secondary  senses.  When  we  appeal  therefore  to  their 
authority  in  proof  of  secondary  senses,  we  are  not 
liable  to  the  charge  of  arguing  in  a  circle.  Such  a 
charge  applies  only  to  those,  who,  while  they  under- 
take to  prove  the  truth  of  our  religion  from  prophecy. 


LECTURE  XXTT.  73 

yet  argQe  only  on  the  supposition  of  secondary  senses. 
For,  as  the  existence  of  secondary  senses  depends  on 
the  authority  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  we  cannot 
argue  from  those  senses  to  the  truth  of  our  religion 
without  taking  for  granted  the  thing  to  be  proved. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  though  we  cannot  apply  them 
to  that  particular  purpose,  there  are  other  purposes, 
to  which  they  may  be  applied.  For  though  they 
prove  nothing  by  themselves,  yet  when  combined  with 
those  prophecies,  which  relate  to  the  Messiah  in  their 
primary  sense,  they  serve  at  least  to  illustrate  that 
unity  of  design,  which  connects  the  Jewish  with  the 
Christian  Dispensation. 

If  we  further  undertake  to  examine,  ivJiat  partic- 
ular passages  of  the  New  Testament  afford  exam- 
ples of  prophecy  applied  in  a  secondary  sense,  we 
shall  find  it  to  be  a  question,  in  which  there  ever  has 
been,  and  probably  ever  ivill  be  a  diversity  of  opin- 
ion. For  not  only  are  commentators  at  variance  on 
the  question,  what  are  literal  prophecies  of  our  Sav- 
iour, and  what  are  not,  but  even  they  who  are  agreed 
on  this  previous  question,  are  still  at  variance  as  to 
the  question,  what  appellation  shall  be  given  to  those 
passages,  which  are  applied  to  the  period  of  our  Sav- 
iour's ministry,  and  yet  literally  belong  to  another 
period.  That  there  are  such  passages  we  cannot 
doubt :  and  we  may  allege,  as  an  instance,  that  pas- 
sage in  the  thirty-tirst  Chapter  of  Jeremiah,  which  is 
applied  to  the  massacre  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem. 

10 


74  LECTURE  XXII. 

The  words  of  Jeremiah  are,  "  A  voice  was  heard  m 
Ramah,  lamentation,  and  bitter  weeping :  Rahel 
weeping  for  her  children,  refused  to  be  comforted  for 
her  children,  because  they  were  not.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  Refrain  thy  voice  from  weeping,  and  thine 
eyes  from  tears  :  for  thy  work  shall  be  rewarded 
saith  the  Lord,  and  they  shall  come  again  from  the 
land  of  the  enemy."  This  passage  evidently  relates 
to  the  carrying  away  of  the  Jews  into  captivity,  and 
their  future  return.  For  it  appears  from  the  fortieth 
Chapter  of  Jeremiah,  that  Ramah  was  the  place,  to 
which  Nebuzaradan,  the  captain  of  Nebuchadncz- 
zar^s  guard,  first  brought  his  captives  from  Jerusalem. 
According  to  its  literal  meaning  therefore  it  is  obvi- 
ously a  prophecy  of  a  totally  different  event  from  the 
massacre  of  the  children  in  Bethlehem  by  order  of 
Herod.  Nor  do  we  perceive  how  it  can  be  a  proph- 
ecy of  this  event  even  in  a  secondary  sense.  For  not 
only  were  Ramah  and  Bethlehem  two  distinct  places, 
the  one  lying  as  far  to  the  north  as  the  other  to  the 
south  of  Jerusalem,  but  the  consolation,  afforded  to 
Rahel,  that  her  children  should  come  again,  was  a 
consolation,  which  could  not  be  afforded  to  the  moth- 
ers of  the  murdered  children  in  Bethlehem.  A  com- 
parison therefore  of  the  sorrow,  expressed  in  the  one 
case,  with  the  sorrow,  which  was  felt  in  the  other, 
appears  at  least  to  constitute  the  sole  ground  of  ap- 
plication. Such  applications  of  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  events  recorded  in  the  New,  various 


LECTURE  XXI 1.  75 

writers,  for  instance  Bishop  Kidder  in  liis  Demon- 
stration of  the  Messias,  and  Dr.  Nicholls  in  his  Con- 
ference with  a  Theist,  have  called  hy  the  name  of 
accommodation.  But  other  writers  have  asserted 
that  even  such  passages  are  prophecies,  at  least  in  a 
secondary  sense,  of  the  event,  to  whi<:h  they  are  ap- 
plied. The  very  passage,  which  we  have  been  just 
considering,  is  introduced  with  the  words,  "Then 
was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  Jeremy  the 
prophet."  Hence  it  has  been  inferred,  that  St.  Mat- 
thew, who  quoted  the  passage,  regarded  it  as  a  proph- 
ecy at  least  in  some  sense,  since  the  use  of  the  term 
''  fulilled ''  implies  a  prediction  of  that  event,  in 
which  it  was  fulfilled.  And  if  in  the  opinion  of  an 
inspired  Apostle  any  passage  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  a  prediction  of  that  event  to  which  he  himself 
applied  it,  we  must  conclude,  that  such  passage  really 
was  a  prediction  of  that  event,  though  we  ourselves 
could  not  have  discovered  it.  To  diminish  however 
the  diflRculties,  wkich  we  should  still  feel  on  such  oc- 
casions, a  distinction  has  been  made  by  some  Com- 
mentators, especially  by  Professor  Dathe  in  the  Notes 
to  his  Latin  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  between 
quotations  introduced  with  the  formula,  "  Then  was 
fulfilled,"  and  quotations  introduced  with  the  formu- 
la, ^^This  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled." 
Though  quotations  therefore  of  the  latter  kind  are 
quotations  oi  prophecies ,  relating  either  in  a  primary 
or  ill  a  secondary  sense,   to  those  very  events,  to 


76  LECTURE  XXll. 

which  they  are  applied,  quotations  of  the  former 
kind  are  supposed  to  have  been  intended  for  no- 
thing more,  than  wliat  is  called  an  accommodation y 
or  an  application  of  a  passage  to  a  corresponding 
event.  And  this  distinction  has  really  a  foundation 
in  the  practice  of  the  Jews  themselves.  For  Suren- 
husius  in  his  third  Thesis  De  formulis  allegandi,  has 
quoted  Rabbinical  expressions  corresponding  to  the 
expressions  of  the  New  Testament,  "  Then  was  ful- 
filled," and  ^^  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfil- 
led." And  it  appears,  that  the  latter  expression  on- 
ly was  used  with  passages,  which  were  quoted  by 
way  of  argument,  or  proof.  But  if  the  term  acconi' 
modation  be  applied,  as  it  is  by  some  writers,  to  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  quoted  in  the 
New  Testament  with  the  strong  expression,  "this 
was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,"  the  use  of  it  in 
such  cases  is  neither  warranted  by  the  practice  of  the 
Jewish  writers,  nor  can  be  consonant  with  the  design 
of  the  sacred  writers  themselves.  Passages  so  in- 
troduced must  be  regarded  as  real  prophecies,  at  least 
in  a  secondary,  if  not  in  a  primary  sense.  To  use 
therefore  the  term  accommodation  for  the  passages  in 
general^  which  are  taken  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  applied  to  the  events  of  the  New,  is  to  carry 
the  principle  of  accommodation  to  an  extent,  which  it 
will  not  bear.  Nor  can  the  terra  "  secondary  sense  "  be 
applied  in  that  general  manner  :  for  there  are  certain- 
ly prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  relate  to 


LECTURE  XXII.  rr 

the  Messiah  in  a  primary  sense.  Indeed,  if  all  the 
passages,  which  are  quoted  as  prophecies  in  the  New- 
Testament,  were  mere  accommodations,  they  would 
cease  to  be  prophecies  altogether.  They  would  not 
be  prophecies  even  in  name.  And  though  passages, 
which  are  prophetic  in  a  secondary  sense,  are  still 
prophecies,  yet  if  all  the  prophecies  relating  to  the 
Messiah  predicted  the  coming  of  Christ  in  a  mere 
mystical  or  secondary  sense,  we  should  not  have  that 
sure  word  of  prophecy,  which  both  our  Saviour  and 
his  Apostles  have  taught  us  to  expect. 

Let  us  now  recapitulate,  and  place  in  one  point 
of  view,  the  preceding  inquiries  into  the  prophecies 
relating  to  the  Messiah.  Many  of  these  prophecies 
relate  to  him  according  to  their  literal  and  primary 
sense.  From  these  prophecies,  in  conjunction  with 
miracles,  we  can  argue  to  the  divine  authority  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  Their  authority  being  thus 
estahlishedf  we  can  appeal  to  that  authority,  as  evi- 
dence, that  any  passage  of  the  Old  Testament,  liter- 
ally relating  to  some  event  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, but  quoted  by  them  as  a  prophecy  of  some 
event  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  a  prophe- 
cy of  that  event  in  a  secondary  sense.  But  as  not 
all  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  which  literally 
relate  to  events  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  are 
in  their  application  to  events  under  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation applied  in  the  same  manner,  we  must  en- 
deavour to  distinguish  the  cases,  in  which  the  Sacred 


7S  LECTURE  XXI I. 

Writers  themselves  intended  to  give  examples  of 
prophecy,  from  the  cases,  in  which  they  meant  only 
to  quote  for  the  purpose  of  similitude  or  illustration. 
In  the  former,  we  have  examples  of  prophecy  in  a 
secondary  sense :  in  the  latter  alone,  we  have  exam- 
ples of  accommodation. 

END  OF  PART  IV. 


/  / 


n^( 


6^ 


LiT--^^  '■^'^ 


I  ~ 


(J^>^h{A 


■t 


c , 


